Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

While I’m not fond of the Supreme Court’s current makeup, I can assure you that they aren’t ruling in favor of President shitstain on this one. The only thing president shitstain’s lawyers are doing with their completely frivolous arguments is delaying the inevitable (hopefully until after the next election) and trashing their own reputations.

They will find some way to rule in the cheeto's favor.  It may take some impressive mental gymnastics.  But Kavanaugh, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito stand ready.  They will find a way to either bring Roberts on board, or hold off on ruling until Ginsburg dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 48.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2695

  • 4th&Five

    1699

  • jimmyjazz

    1286

  • atomheartbevo

    1219

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

GHOSTUSER
GHOSTUSER

I fucking love this President. My 2 faves during my lifetime are Trump and Nixon. They share a lot of similarities and were besieged by the same groups of assholes. No I’m not trolling. Y’all, the lef

Francisco 2.0
Francisco 2.0
Brisketexan
Brisketexan

This.....is magnificent. The "younger generation" is going to have to work double-time to fund YOUR Social Security, which YOUR generation of elected officials raided the fuck out of.  And which,

Posted Images

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46479

Posted
Posted

If ruling for Trump would mean POTUS could not be investigated, then that would gut the impeachment provision of the Constitution.  It would literally mean impeachment would have to be undertaken w/o investigation, at least to my way of thinking.  I can't see that happening at all.

These justices may be conservative shitstains, but they're not all stupid and they're not all willing to trample on the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

If ruling for Trump would mean POTUS could not be investigated, then that would gut the impeachment provision of the Constitution.  It would literally mean impeachment would have to be undertaken w/o investigation, at least to my way of thinking.  I can't see that happening at all.

These justices may be conservative shitstains, but they're not all stupid and they're not all willing to trample on the Constitution.

They'll change their minds as soon as a dem is elected, assuming there's still a republic.  Or write the opinion in such a way it only protects presidents in limited situations, situations that apply here.  And yes, they're willing to trample on the Constitution.  See their opinion upholding the Muslim ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2465

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

If ruling for Trump would mean POTUS could not be investigated, then that would gut the impeachment provision of the Constitution.  It would literally mean impeachment would have to be undertaken w/o investigation, at least to my way of thinking.  I can't see that happening at all.

These justices may be conservative shitstains, but they're not all stupid and they're not all willing to trample on the Constitution.

I'm leaning toward Roberts doing the right thing. But Trump has three votes in the bag (Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito) regardless of the law.  

Would be awesome if they don't even grant cert.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13548

Posted
Posted

The tax return issue shows that Trump was simultaneously the most well-known and also unknown person that we've recently elected as President.  Think about how Mitt Romney didn't even know it was an option for him not to release his tax returns. Guarantee that he won't do it now since the GOP and the general public have shown it doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31686

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

If SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump on this it could bring down the entire system.

I would imagine Roberts would not let this happen solely to protect the legitimacy of the court.

The most recent opinion touching on these type of issues was Clinton v. Jones, which was unanimous (Breyer concurring) against the President.  Four of those Justices remain on the Court, not including Sotomayor and Kagan, if you insist on believing it will go along party lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
Just now, A-Tex Devil said:

I'm leaning toward Roberts doing the right thing. But Trump has three votes in the bag (Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito) regardless of the law.  

Would be awesome if they don't even grant cert.  

Them not granting cert is certainly possible. That’s usually what they do when the issue is so obvious like this one. Trumps inevitable twitter meltdown if they did that would be hilarious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13548

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, kevwun said:

No, I don't expect that Roberts will let them basically declare that Trump is an emperor.

I agree with this. I even wonder if SCOTUS will rule on it.  To be honest, there doesn't seem to be any issue of national importance. I can even see Trump being more successful having a court argue that the records should be sealed from public viewing.  But to keep them from investigators?  Seems like a stretch to give Trump a right that no one else has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jack Straw

Jack Straw 2954

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

These justices may be conservative shitstains, but they're not all stupid and they're not all willing to trample on the Constitution.

one would think.  but then ask yourself, are they Republican?  if the answer is yes (and it is), then do not underestimate their willingness and ability to act in a manner contrary to the principles of democracy, and to do the wrong thing for the country.  all of the evidence regarding Republicans supports that proposition.  all of it.
 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105586

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I was just joshin’. My official opinion here is there’s no way the Supreme Court allows him to withhold returns.

I agree....but also note that so much of our conversation revolves around Roberts.

The fact that the truth may well be that one man, John Roberts, holds the functional future of the Republic in his hands, is troubling.  I don't like that close of a margin of error when it comes to my country and the rule of law surviving.  All other systems have failed.  We're counting on a single man, at a single failsafe mechanism, saving the day.  That's not an optimal position.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27977

Posted
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

I agree....but also note that so much of our conversation revolves around Roberts.

The fact that the truth may well be that one man, John Roberts, holds the functional future of the Republic in his hands, is troubling.  I don't like that close of a margin of error when it comes to my country and the rule of law surviving.  All other systems have failed.  We're counting on a single man, at a single failsafe mechanism, saving the day.  That's not an optimal position.

Well he certainly hasn't fucked up a number of critical, pivitol decisions lately or anything right? 

...

Just ignore citizens United and Shelby county and Att vs conception

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90057

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

If ruling for Trump would mean POTUS could not be investigated, then that would gut the impeachment provision of the Constitution.  It would literally mean impeachment would have to be undertaken w/o investigation, at least to my way of thinking.  I can't see that happening at all.

These justices may be conservative shitstains, but they're not all stupid and they're not all willing to trample on the Constitution.

 

34 minutes ago, kevwun said:

No, I don't expect that Roberts will let them basically declare that Trump is an emperor.

 

31 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

I'm leaning toward Roberts doing the right thing. But Trump has three votes in the bag (Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito) regardless of the law.  

Would be awesome if they don't even grant cert.  

Roberts seems like he gives a shit about his legacy, and that of the USSC.  

Unlike all of the bought-and-paid-for Rs in Congress, he’s not required to hold Trump’s mushroom while he pisses.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46479

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

one would think.  but then ask yourself, are they Republican?  if the answer is yes (and it is), then do not underestimate their willingness and ability to act in a manner contrary to the principles of democracy, and to do the wrong thing for the country.  all of the evidence regarding Republicans supports that proposition.  all of it.
 

So far, it would seem this is not the case.

Quote

But there were as many 5-4 decisions with all the liberals plus one conservative in the majority this term as there were cases with all the conservatives voting over the liberal wing. 

SCOTUS doesn't always split 5-4 conservative-liberal since BK joined

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26684

Posted
Posted
Roberts seems like he gives a shit about his legacy, and that of the USSC.  
Unlike all of the bought-and-paid-for Rs in Congress, he’s not required to hold Trump’s mushroom while he pisses.   

It is the measure of how bad things have gotten that I am grateful for Chief Justice John Roberts.
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26684

Posted
Posted
Roberts seems like he gives a shit about his legacy, and that of the USSC.  
Unlike all of the bought-and-paid-for Rs in Congress, he’s not required to hold Trump’s mushroom while he pisses.   

It is the measure of how bad things have gotten that I am grateful for Chief Justice John Roberts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29823

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Pasken said:

This would be kind of a big deal if it's anything like the regulations governing when companies hold public contents. It's pretty serious business. 

I think I read somewhere holding these kind of contests is of very questionable legality in the first place, which might be why they're not really rewarding the rubes in the first place (i.e. trading support for a prize).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90057

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It is the measure of how bad things have gotten that I am grateful for Chief Justice John Roberts.

If you told me back in 2003 when he was appointed, that by 2019 Roberts would be siding with the librool judges on occasion, that’s he’s the swing vote,  and that he may put a huge brake on a Republican President....

I would have said “let me guess, the Astros are also going to switch to the AL, win a World Series, and compete for another World Series, LOL!”

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31686

Posted
Posted

Here is the Second Circuit's opinion in the Mazar's subpoena case (Manhattan DA Vance subpoenaing records not directly from the President but from a third party in possession).  

Skip the part on abstention, that's super legalese.  The interesting part, and it's pretty straightforward, starts on page 16.  We already know from Clinton v. Jones and US v. Nixon that a President may be sued (worse than a subpoena) in a state civil suit and subpoena'ed in a federal criminal action (unanimous opinions in both cases).

Nothing Trump argued persuaded the Second Circuit (or the district court) that this subpoena was outside the Nixon and Clinton general holdings.  It completely flushed any notion that the president has immunity from all judicial process (state, federal, civil, criminal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14375

Posted
Posted
Here is the Second Circuit's opinion in the Mazar's subpoena case (Manhattan DA Vance subpoenaing records not directly from the President but from a third party in possession).  
Skip the part on abstention, that's super legalese.  The interesting part, and it's pretty straightforward, starts on page 16.  We already know from Clinton v. Jones and US v. Nixon that a President may be sued (worse than a subpoena) in a state civil suit and subpoena'ed in a federal criminal action (unanimous opinions in both cases).
Nothing Trump argued persuaded the Second Circuit (or the district court) that this subpoena was outside the Nixon and Clinton general holdings.  It completely flushed any notion that the president has immunity from all judicial process (state, federal, civil, criminal).

I found the Younger abstention analysis in the district court opinion fascinating. It’s been years since I have read on that doctrine. I haven’t had a chance to read the appellate opinion yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pasken

Pasken 1309

Posted
Posted (edited)

Maybe there will be a miracle and there aren't 4 justices that think this is even worth their valuable time and the supremes don't even take the case. More likely, this is a 5-4 decision with concurrings that won't be ready until next summer. 

Edited by Pasken
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here is the Second Circuit's opinion in the Mazar's subpoena case (Manhattan DA Vance subpoenaing records not directly from the President but from a third party in possession).  

Skip the part on abstention, that's super legalese.  The interesting part, and it's pretty straightforward, starts on page 16.  We already know from Clinton v. Jones and US v. Nixon that a President may be sued (worse than a subpoena) in a state civil suit and subpoena'ed in a federal criminal action (unanimous opinions in both cases).

Nothing Trump argued persuaded the Second Circuit (or the district court) that this subpoena was outside the Nixon and Clinton general holdings.  It completely flushed any notion that the president has immunity from all judicial process (state, federal, civil, criminal).

Like I’ve said. Trumps lawyers argument is basically frivolous.  The Supreme Court isn’t gonna bail his sorry was out, at least on this particular issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31686

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:


I found the Younger abstention analysis in the district court opinion fascinating. It’s been years since I have read on that doctrine. I haven’t had a chance to read the appellate opinion yet.

Yeah I was just writing for the peanut gallery.  Most here dgaf about that and it won't help Trump in any event, only hurt him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26430

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Holy shit.

I figured she was a nutter but this is.....something.

Bitch speaks in tongues.
 

 


White women.

 

Religion has no place in government. Today's Republicans wouldn't know an actual conservative if he walked up and punched them right in the mouth.

59559_527960843892452_1355870866_n.jpg

quote-barry-goldwater.jpg

Quotation-Barry-Goldwater-Religious-fact

GoldwaterRight.gif

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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...