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

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Popular Post
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30,064

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Going straight from Chutkan to Scotus leaves them a blanker slate to write on, and possibly what could be considered a more partisan opinion of the court below.

If SCOTUS is going to go in the tank for Donnie, I absolutely want that fact pinned down before the election.

I would hope that a bunch of people not yet engaged would view Donald Trump with immunity from even worse criminal ass-hattery in his second term to be an even greater existential threat to democracy, if it’s possible. 

People need to know that the only thing that will save us from him - is them.

  • Hook 'Em 9
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 28.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104,465

Posted
Posted
If they go with Trump, it would seem that Biden would also be given some extraordinary powers. But then again it wouldn’t surprise me if scotus sides with Trump, they find a way to ensure that another president doesn’t get the same protection.

Bingo. It will be a special ruling with super limited reading that only applies to presidents named, oh, I dunno, “Trump.” Never doubt how off the rails Alito and Thomas can go, and who they’ll take with them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45,513

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Bingo. It will be a special ruling with super limited reading that only applies to presidents named, oh, I dunno, “Trump.” Never doubt how off the rails Alito and Thomas can go, and who they’ll take with them.

Why do you even say stupid shit like this?  I mean, you're a lawyer, and that certainly doesn't give you special insight that the rest of us lack, it just gives you the education to know that what you are saying is utter bullshit.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104,465

Posted
Posted
Why do you even say stupid shit like this?  I mean, you're a lawyer, and that certainly doesn't give you special insight that the rest of us lack, it just gives you the education to know that what you are saying is utter bullshit.

Hyperbole to make the point. Those two will write shit that you never would have imagined even 10 years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45,513

Posted
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:


Hyperbole to make the point. Those two will write shit that you never would have imagined even 10 years ago.

OK, but your hyperbole blunts the edge of your ledge talking points.  I mean, I assume you actually want to get through to people.  Maybe you just want to clutch your pearls out loud.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 76,159

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Bingo. It will be a special ruling with super limited reading that only applies to presidents named, oh, I dunno, “Trump.” Never doubt how off the rails Alito and Thomas can go, and who they’ll take with them.

 

they already have a plan worked up, I have no doubt

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38,127

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

If the supremes go against him, i think there is a pretty good chance he abolishes them when he wins.

Or he just tweets “TRUMP HATING JUDGES RUINING OUR COUNTRY. PEOPLE WILL RISE UP AND DESTROY COURTS”

and one is them is attacked. 

and the GOP still votes him in primary because they’re all pieces of shit 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19,076

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Or he just tweets “TRUMP HATING JUDGES RUINING OUR COUNTRY. PEOPLE WILL RISE UP AND DESTROY COURTS”

and one is them is attacked. 

and the GOP still votes him in primary because they’re all pieces of shit 

This.  Except he doesn't tweet, he truths.  And only his idiot cult members are a part of that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19,449

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Future Trump after losing this case: “Kavanaugh is such a disappointment. I was told that he fought for conservative values but there was something off about him. I should have listened to my instinct. He’s such a loser. They say he raped that young woman.”

One of a hundred disastrous ironies about Trump is that his moronic supporters, in large part, sent him to D.C. to "DRAIN THE SWAMP."  And the only people that quit/retired/got terminated were his own appointees and nominees.  The Potomac Establishment remains and there's literally hundreds of Trump folks in jail, under indictment, or back home working their previous job.  He could not have fucked that part up more and it somehow never gets talked about.  I guess give him credit for shoveling that bag of shit under the rug.  One of the few things he manages not to ramble on about on the mic.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85,056

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

I'm not sure how anyone, whose been paying attention the last few years, can expect anything other than SCOTUS ruling in favor of a Dotard when they have a chance to screw the country again. 

The same SCOTUS who did not save him in 2020? 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19,449

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The same SCOTUS who did not save him in 2020? 

This.  They wanted to help him get back into office, but it was like that Seinfeld episode (yeah, I know it's always that with me) where Kramer and Newman go to that used record store to sell some albums and the counter guy is like, "Look, I wanna help you out but you got nothing but Al Jolson sings 'Mary' over here..."  Say what you want about this SCOTUS but they at least go through the motions of citing constitutional originalism and case law and precedent.  But Trump's team was "Hugo Chavez rigged these voting machines from beyond the grave, Mike Lindell will explain everything, Kerri Lake has all the evident in her light filter, and Rudy is at the Four Seasons collecting all the fraudulent voter rolls as we speak!"  They had absolutely zero to go on.  They likely wanted to make some shit up, but even they were like, "We have to write something down, that's kind of our jam.  But this?  C'mon, this is the Al Jolson of election protests..."  

That's the good news.  The bad news is there's a room of people who've had three years to take a different tack.  Like "The Hunt for Red October", they've taken the safety measures of all their weapons systems, they won't make the mistake again twice.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89,362

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

I'm not sure how anyone, whose been paying attention the last few years, can expect anything other than SCOTUS ruling in favor of a Dotard when they have a chance to screw the country again. 

36 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The same SCOTUS who did not save him in 2020? 

Yeah, they had the chance to help him and didn't, along with dozens of other judges who didn't help him in the 60+ court losses that he racked up.

And in this instance, most of them will be thinking that if they allow him to commit crimes in office, then other Presidents will do it as well.

Plus, there is the specter of Trump being helped out by the lower courts (i.e. delayed trials) so they can keep their hands clean.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13,391

Posted
Posted

I understand how this action from Smith is about his case but what is the impact on the GA case? While I realize that is state case, it would seem that Trump's potential federal immunity would impact immunity at the state level. You can't have a state suing or jailing a President when the federal system is saying he is immune.

I don't know if Roberts can force GA to also jump into this case but I would think he would want to wrap all of this up at once.

Personally I think SCOTUS does not protect Trump on this case. Alito and Thomas will but that was always a given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29,187

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why do you even say stupid shit like this?  I mean, you're a lawyer, and that certainly doesn't give you special insight that the rest of us lack, it just gives you the education to know that what you are saying is utter bullshit.

The less hyperbolic version is that they're not bound by precedent and will happily rule one way for Republican presidents and the other for Democratic presidents. They've already been doing this on lots of administrative law shit. They were much more deferential to Trump than they've been to Biden.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85,056

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I understand how this action from Smith is about his case but what is the impact on the GA case? While I realize that is state case, it would seem that Trump's potential federal immunity would impact immunity at the state level. You can't have a state suing or jailing a President when the federal system is saying he is immune.

I don't know if Roberts can force GA to also jump into this case but I would think he would want to wrap all of this up at once.

Personally I think SCOTUS does not protect Trump on this case. Alito and Thomas will but that was always a given.

Roberts won’t protect him. Which means he’ll drag Kavanaugh. 5-4 minimum, probably 6-3 or 7-2. Amy may go along with Roberts and Kavanaugh. Gorsuch is always a bit of a wildcard. We know what Alito and Clarence/Ginny will do 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29,187

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

One of a hundred disastrous ironies about Trump is that his moronic supporters, in large part, sent him to D.C. to "DRAIN THE SWAMP."  And the only people that quit/retired/got terminated were his own appointees and nominees.  The Potomac Establishment remains and there's literally hundreds of Trump folks in jail, under indictment, or back home working their previous job.  He could not have fucked that part up more and it somehow never gets talked about.  I guess give him credit for shoveling that bag of shit under the rug.  One of the few things he manages not to ramble on about on the mic.

This is absolutely not true. There was an exodus of career employees from the various agencies, most notably for purposes of maintaining the actual rule of law, from the Department of Justice. It's just that those were people whose names the public doesn't know and CNN wouldn't cover.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,184

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Roberts won’t protect him. Which means he’ll drag Kavanaugh. 5-4 minimum, probably 6-3 or 7-2. Amy may go along with Roberts and Kavanaugh. Gorsuch is always a bit of a wildcard. We know what Alito and Clarence/Ginny will do 

I think this is about right.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29,187

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The same SCOTUS who did not save him in 2020? 

Different cases, different times.  This kind of "they didn't help him then so they won't later" strict logical thinking is just not how shit works in real life.  

I don't think they'll grant him full immunity, but I do think they'll try to give him some sort of partial immunity and impose some new procedural hurdles that screw with the timing of the case. Roberts is good at issuing rulings that don't seem to help Trump, but delay things in a way that gives him what he wants (see his tax return cases).  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13,391

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Roberts won’t protect him. Which means he’ll drag Kavanaugh. 5-4 minimum, probably 6-3 or 7-2. Amy may go along with Roberts and Kavanaugh. Gorsuch is always a bit of a wildcard. We know what Alito and Clarence/Ginny will do 

If the SCOTUS request is only the Jan 6th rally, I could see the SCOTUS conservatives finding the slightest cover that Trump was acting on the behalf of the Exec leader in wanting to enforce laws even if his interpretation of the law and results were wrong. How the rally/mob reacted to the situation wasn't on him. (Their defense, not mine.)

This is why I see it's important to bring in the GA case. The President strong arming a state leader to produce fake votes cannot be construed as within the bounds of a presidential action. Thank god someone recorded that conversation with Trump.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 76,159

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Roberts won’t protect him. Which means he’ll drag Kavanaugh. 5-4 minimum, probably 6-3 or 7-2. Amy may go along with Roberts and Kavanaugh. Gorsuch is always a bit of a wildcard. We know what Alito and Clarence/Ginny will do 


what if trump promises Roberts to help finish off voter’s rights ?

can roberts avoid that carrot 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85,056

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Roberts would also very much prefer Trump not yell "HEY I SUPPORT JOHN ROBERTS ELIMINATING BLACK PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO VOTE BECAUSE THEY'RE ANIMALS NOT PEOPLE!" on truth social while he's eliminating what remains of the VRA.

At what point does Roberts need Trump's help to completely finish dismantling the VRA and disenfranchising minorities.  They've done more than enough in the period outside of 2017-2021. They don't need him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29,187

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

At what point does Roberts need Trump's help to completely finish dismantling the VRA and disenfranchising minorities.  They've done more than enough in the period outside of 2017-2021. They don't need him. 

Right. If anything, to Roberts' mind Trump makes it harder by drawing attention to what he's doing. 

If Roberts helps Trump, it will be because he thinks it's beneficial to the longer-term project of Republican political control, but he'll only help to the extent he thinks he can maintain his pretense as a neutral umpire while doing so.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,184

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

I'm not sure how anyone, whose been paying attention the last few years, can expect anything other than SCOTUS ruling in favor of a Dotard when they have a chance to screw the country again. 

I mean, how much have you really been paying attention?

Every case involving Trump in his capacity as former president that has reached the Supreme Court has been a loser for him.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45,513

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I mean, how much have you really been paying attention?

Every case involving Trump in his capacity as former president that has reached the Supreme Court has been a loser for him.

 

Yeah, this is where the hand-wringing gets super old.  Trump vs the courts has not generally been kind to Trump.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mo Horn

Mo Horn 8,795

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Js1 said:

The same SCOTUS who did not save him in 2020? 

 

22 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yeah, they had the chance to help him and didn't, along with dozens of other judges who didn't help him in the 60+ court losses that he racked up.

And in this instance, most of them will be thinking that if they allow him to commit crimes in office, then other Presidents will do it as well.

Plus, there is the specter of Trump being helped out by the lower courts (i.e. delayed trials) so they can keep their hands clean.

 

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I mean, how much have you really been paying attention?

Every case involving Trump in his capacity as former president that has reached the Supreme Court has been a loser for him.

 

 

10 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, this is where the hand-wringing gets super old.  Trump vs the courts has not generally been kind to Trump.

Y'all have more faith in SCOTUS than I do, obviously. I hope I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85,056

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

 

 

 

Y'all have more faith in SCOTUS than I do, obviously. I hope I'm wrong.

SCOTUS has only been on Trump's side when it advances their agenda, not to help Trump specifically.  Roberts doesn't particularly like Trump and Kavanaugh pretty much votes how Roberts tells him to vote.  I don't think the conservative majority has some secret "the president is immune from anything he did in office and after office" agenda.  They did nothing to help him in 2020 to keep him in office. Not a damn thing. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89,362

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

SCOTUS has only been on Trump's side when it advances their agenda, not to help Trump specifically.  Roberts doesn't particularly like Trump and Kavanaugh pretty much votes how Roberts tells him to vote.  I don't think the conservative majority has some secret "the president is immune from anything he did in office and after office" agenda.  They did nothing to help him in 2020 to keep him in office. Not a damn thing. 

When they and the lower courts refused to help keep him in office in 2020, I'm honestly surprised he didn't accuse all of the Republican judges/justices of being The Deep State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...