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

[tx 3 putt 76159]

46 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Finally.

 

SC is going to sit on this 

[tx 3 putt 76159]

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 !

[atomheartbevo 89362]

15 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

His truth social rants from the shitter are going to be epic today.

Currentky, he seems to be obsessed with polls showing him beating Biden.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump

[wildcat09 29187]

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.

[DixonHur 11074]

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".

[Js1 85056]

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. 

[wildcat09 29187]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

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".

If Scalia issues an opinion on this at all, we've got bigger problems than Donald Trump. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11667]

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."

[gernblansten 3183]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

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".

All you have to do is cite Thatwasthen v. Now, 666 U.S. 66, 6 (1974)

[dcbc 14388]

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. "

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11667]

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."

['stache 21743]

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.

[texasdago 7550]

[Shut up Lou Holtz 2003]

12 minutes ago, texasdago said:

That’s fucking gold!

[David Dennison 18608]

So are we getting a trial before the election or what?

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11667]

I think so.  We might have SCOTUS rejecting cert in a month.  Doesn't take too long to get the trial on the calendar after that.

[Goredho 17302]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

You left off the best part of that scene.

[David Dennison 18608]

8 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I think so.  We might have SCOTUS rejecting cert in a month.  Doesn't take too long to get the trial on the calendar after that.

And if they grant it and sit on a decision until the end of the term?

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11667]

are you asking if that is possible? of course.

[David Dennison 18608]

Just now, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

are you asking if that is possible? of course.

I'm asking if they do that, will it still be possible to get a trial started before November?

[Gil Bang 25865]

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.

No it won’t. Judge is waiting on the perjury thing to plead out.

[Ghost of LL 15348]

48 minutes ago, Goredho said:

You left off the best part of that scene.

The part where Det. Murtaugh shoots an unarmed man, but is never prosecuted and cannot be sued for civil damages because he has--and here's the great irony of the movie--qualified immunity?

I mean, yeah.  That was great.  It works on so many levels.

[tx 3 putt 76159]

 

[Gatorubet 30064]

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

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".

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11667]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The part where Det. Murtaugh shoots an unarmed man, but is never prosecuted and cannot be sued for civil damages because he has--and here's the great irony of the movie--qualified immunity?

I mean, yeah.  That was great.  It works on so many levels.

pretty liberal application of immunity in movies if you happen to have a good one-liner.

[Gil Bang 25865]

[The Original Greaser Bob 2785]

3 hours 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?

He's got to have some immunity.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

3 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

He's got to have some immunity.

We're talking about crimes here.

[Huckleberry 32685]

3 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

He's got to have some immunity.

Yes, along with impeachment and conviction it lays out how a President who committed illegal acts in office is to be held accountable in our system. It was all perfectly well understood by everyone and still is by non-MAGAts but was depressingly in need of being affirmed and spelled out because of their idiocy and volume. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11667]

It is careful to say that it isn't sure its reasoning applies to criminal prosecution during his term (he might not have been able to be indicted Jan 7) and that it might not apply to state crimes (Alabama can't pass a law that makes it illegal to eat ice cream while wearing aviators and lie in wait to spring it on him).  So he's got that immunity.  But for federal criminal statutes, it says go for it.  With respect to the implicit assumption that everyone seems to worry about ("They'll use this as a political excuse to grab every ex-president!"), the opinion just says If that's the case, why are we looking at this for the first time after 250 years of having presidents?

[Huckleberry 32685]

They also made sure to refer to POTUS as an officer as a wink and nod to the ballot eligibility cases.

[tx 3 putt 76159]

 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2785]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

We're talking about crimes here.

I am talking about immunity in terms of actions within the course and scope of his duties.  I haven't read the case, but my assumption is that the President making presidential decisions - for instance order someone to take out people who are trying to ransack the Capitol and attack members of Congress -- has some immunity from prosecution related to those decisions.

[Brisketexan 104465]

1 minute ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I am talking about immunity in terms of actions within the course and scope of his duties.  I haven't read the case, but my assumption is that the President making presidential decisions - for instance order someone to take out people who are trying to ransack the Capitol and attack members of Congress -- has some immunity from prosecution related to those decisions.

Yes.  That is the question of "official immunity."  If the action was within the course and scope of his official duties/actions, then he would have immunity for those.  The examples GOLL and I were discussing earlier:

Ordering a drone to take out suspected members of Al Qaeda (even if the intel was dead wrong, and it takes out a birthday party of innocents at the Homs Chuck E. Cheese) - an official act, for which there is official immunity.

Getting off of Marine One, grabbing an M-4 from one of the security detail, and gunning down every member of the press corps -- not an official act, no official immunity.

Note that the standard isn't a really high one.  It just has to arguably be within the scope of performing the duties of the office.  So, most all of Trump's statements about the electoral college and the federal process.....probable immunity.  But actions as a candidate, not POTUS (the call to the Georgia SOS, ordering him to find more votes)....no official immunity.

That's a simplified summary, but it's still out there.

[Js1 85056]

Isn't it similar to Meadow's trying to claim his actions in Georgia were in his official capacity and that was pretty succinctly ruled as "lol no, your job duties do not encompass trying to overturn the results of an election, dumbass" 

[tbone_ 14020]

Nm

[jimmyjazz 45513]

I am of the wholly uneducated and most likely naïve opinion that crimes do not fall within the course and scope of POTUS' official duties and actions, unless we don't consider the Constitution a standard of law:

Quote

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[YGIFS 19449]

Yeah, I'll defer to the more learned legal minds on this...but political ideology aside...the one thing I gleaned from studying under Justice Kennedy and then hearing/reading from others on the court over the years is while they twist precedent and logic to suit their needs...they---on the whole---sort of still see their institution and their predecessors and successors as a significant branch of America.  They, almost to a person, divisive as they may be, sorta see the past and future they control as being a mark of their existence.  They'll fuck this up no doubt, but they're gonna have to pay serious credence to Scalia's 14th opinion and wrench over what future bench members think about all this.  For better or worse, it's a closed-loop fraternity of a very select few...but they actually do give a shit about what happened before and how they'll be viewed after for the exact reason because they are legal nerds.  Harm can come from that lens, but at least it'll eat them away from the inside.  I have a note somewhere from Justice Kennedy that says something about what we say here and do here today will echo for generations.  I can't remember the exact language, it still hits the feels.  

[dcbc 14388]

Yeah, I'll defer to the more learned legal minds on this...but political ideology aside...the one thing I gleaned from studying under Justice Kennedy and then hearing/reading from others on the court over the years is while they twist precedent and logic to suit their needs...they---on the whole---sort of still see their institution and their predecessors and successors as a significant branch of America.  They, almost to a person, divisive as they may be, sorta see the past and future they control as being a mark of their existence.  They'll fuck this up no doubt, but they're gonna have to pay serious credence to Scalia's 14th opinion and wrench over what future bench members think about all this.  For better or worse, it's a closed-loop fraternity of a very select few...but they actually do give a shit about what happened before and how they'll be viewed after for the exact reason because they are legal nerds.  Harm can come from that lens, but at least it'll eat them away from the inside.  I have a note somewhere from Justice Kennedy that says something about what we say here and do here today will echo for generations.  I can't remember the exact language, it still hits the feels.  

 
My not-so-entirely-thought-out opinion is that to whatever extent the right wing of the court has an agenda, Trump's future doesn't really play into it long term anymore.  And to the extent they want to follow precedent and the law, same outcome.  So a denial of the petition for writ of cert. or a per curiam affirm wouldn't absolutely surprise me. 

Edited February 6 by dcbc

[RomaVicta 29756]

54 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Isn't it similar to Meadow's trying to claim his actions in Georgia were in his official capacity and that was pretty succinctly ruled as "lol no, your job duties do not encompass trying to overturn the results of an election, dumbass" 

[YGIFS 19449]

What?  Dick Whitman?  A gay homosexual?  Well this is news to me, I assure you sir.  

[jimmyjazz 45513]

51 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

the one thing I gleaned from studying under Justice Kennedy

Uh, what?

[YGIFS 19449]

He taught a summer abroad class when I was in law school in Salzburg, Austria.  He was from, in some roundabout way, the city I attend the primary campus.  My cousin clerked under him and his BiL's dad was a professor with him before he was on the big bench.  Long story.  I can barely read, but I'm good at surrounding myself with smart people.  

[Dnaguy 11740]

26 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

He taught a summer abroad class when I was in law school in Salzburg, Austria.  He was from, in some roundabout way, the city I attend the primary campus.  My cousin clerked under him and his BiL's dad was a professor with him before he was on the big bench.  Long story.  I can barely read, but I'm good at surrounding myself with smart people.  

Smart by association isn’t a bad strategy.

 

But considering you’re on this site, I think you just might be the group idiot… there’s always one… except for this site.

I just assumed we all knew this was a safe space for every group’s idiot to go and just…. Be.

Edited February 7 by Dnaguy

[Hookah Horns 3058]

1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

I think the most likely outcome is SCOTUS either denies cert or unanimously rules against him.  It would be different if Trump were in power - the further right Justices might see an opportunity, and someone like Roberts might cave to fear and find a way to rationalize it (if we rule against Trump, then he will just defy the Supreme Court and cause a Constitutional crisis that threatens our legitimacy as an institution - so we should go ahead make the illegitimate ruling to avoid that).   But they don't have much incentive to do that now.

The arguments to favor Trump would have to be so ridiculous that I don't think even Clarence Thomas would do it unless he was assured that the MAGA dictatorship was actually going to happen.

The only question is whether enough of the assholes vote to grant cert (4) in order to delay the trial, which to be clear would constitute yet another shameful mark on the court's legitimacy. There's no way they're reversing, and I'm as jaded about the court as anyone. 

[YGIFS 19449]

19 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Smart by association isn’t a bad strategy.

 

But considering you’re on this site, I think you just might be the group idiot… there’s always one… except for this site.

I just assumed we all knew this was a safe space for every group’s idiot to go and just…. Be.

I am very likely the group idiot.  But that should make you absolutely terrified because it means you're even something worse   

But honestly, this is what the MAGA movement emboldened.  It was, and is, the mobilization of 25mm people who were disenfranchised, embarrassed, and sidelined from politics because they lacked the civid engagement, intelligence, and wherewithal.  And somebody came along and convinced them that it wasn't their fault---they were just marginalized by Libs, Browns, and Elites.  And I honestly don't know where the fuck we go from here even after he dies.  But we gotta figure it out soon.  You think I'm  fucking annoyance, you have no idea what's still on our collective horizon.  Most will to back to hibernate, but there's enough of the stupids that we're gonna have to deal with for decades to come and they got a beef on their shoulder the size of an F-250.  

[tx 3 putt 76159]

2 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

The only question is whether enough of the assholes vote to grant cert (4) in order to delay the trial, which to be clear would constitute yet another shameful mark on the court's legitimacy. There's no way they're reversing, and I'm as jaded about the court as anyone. 

a delay would be a huge W 

[Bozo_Casanova 26232]

8 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

If Scalia issues an opinion on this at all, we've got bigger problems than Donald Trump. 

[Satchel 6908]

That Trump has only until 2/12 to appeal to the SC is a positive development.

[YGIFS 19449]

4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

That Trump has only until 2/12 to appeal to the SC is a positive development.

It is a net positive for our nation, but it also narrows the window in which we can build up a party-level tolerance for taint-injected opiates.