The Supremes

[tx 3 putt 76975]

On 3/30/2024 at 8:19 AM, HenryJames said:

Cool how you can just go to some lying asshole in Amarillo if you want a nationwide injunction.

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/texas-federal-judge-blocks-updated-fair-lending-rules-2024-03-30/

after cannon gets the next supreme court slot, Kacsmaryk has to be high on the SC replacement list 

[A-Tex Devil 2446]

56 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

 

rinse, repeat

Transactional law…

 

[Bullneck 19100]

A guy can hope, right?

[wildcat09 29354]

His RV probably broke down.

[wildcat09 29354]

"bUT wHAt AbOuT tHE ChAos iF wE alLOweD a StATe to nOt iNcLuDe TRUMP On tHe BalLoT?!?!Q?"

 

 

[tx 3 putt 76975]

57 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

A guy can hope, right?

please be dead, please be dead, ….

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

A guy can hope, right?

I don't want to be hyperbolic, but Clarence Thomas dying might be enough to make me a religious man.

[Gap03 3308]

15 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I don't want to be hyperbolic, but Clarence Thomas dying might be enough to make me a religious man.

I mean, maybe if it's by lightning bolt and it also takes out Alito at the same time ...

[Dahobbs 17543]

23 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

I mean, maybe if it's by lightning bolt and it also takes out Alito at the same time ...

or a horrific dual sided dildo accident.

[Captainant 27677]

The case he's missing orals for is Snyder v. United States which is about whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions

 

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that clarence is missing today.

[Bullneck 19100]

18 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The case he's missing orals for is Snyder v. United States which is about whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions

 

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that clarence is missing today.

scratchcellphonereception/ "I'm calling to recus . . . I mean I'm calling in sick today." scratchcellphonereception/

Edited April 15 by Bullneck

[wildcat09 29354]

The “respectable” Republican turn to “1/6 was good, actually” is nearly complete:

 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

But I'm sure they are all on the up and up.

From Pod Save America, those liberal bastards.

 

Quote

Justice Clarence Thomas returned from an unexplained absence on Monday to wreak the specific kind of conservative havoc for which he is known, implying that January 6 protesters are being unfairly singled-out. He asked, “There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings…Has the government applied this provision to other protests?” It should be noted that Thomas once went a full decade without asking a single question from the bench, so it’s, uh, interesting that he’s choosing this case that could possibly benefit his buddy disgraced former president Donald Trump to be so active and inquisitive. Thomas’s wife Ginny was herself a participant in behind-the-scenes Trump administration efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Call me crazy but that seems relevant!

 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor replied to Thomas’s “question” by saying “We’ve never had a situation before…like this with people attempting to stop a proceeding violently.” The law in question is a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which contains a broad catchall provision that makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding. Sounds tailor-made for January 6, right? Not according to the Court’s conservative justices. Chief Justice John Roberts said the catchall provision must be read in context. Because the original law had to do with altering evidence, and none of the January 6 defendants are accused of that, he said the provision does not apply. Why a “catchall provision” would be interpreted so narrowly and tethered to the previous clause had some of the liberal justices scratching their heads. Justice Neil Gorsuch—always one to ask questions/big wind-bag—asked: “Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify? Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”

If the defendant in this case, Joseph Fischer, prevails, the decision could have major consequences. 

 

As Melissa Murray put it on Monday’s episode of Strict Scrutiny, the case has wide-ranging implications “not only for Fischer and other rank and file January 6th rioters who have been charged under the statute, but…for the federal case against Donald Trump. Because if Defendant Fischer prevails here, Defendant Trump will see two of the four counts against him in the federal January 6th indictment evaporate.” 

 

But the effect of a ruling rejecting the use of the catchall provision remains hard to predict. Most January 6 defendants have not been charged for the offense in question, and those who have, face other charges as well. In Joseph Fischer’s case, he faces six other charges apart from obstruction. Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith brought the obstruction charge against Donald Trump, but he has said that Trump’s conduct could be considered a crime even under a narrow reading of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. 

 

The decision is expected in June.

 

[jimmyjazz 45960]

Quote

and, consequently, others, including, perhaps, Trump).

Mike Sacks should serve time for comma abuse.

[SubliminalHorn 6798]

Can our resident lawyers defend the decision not to hear McKesson v. Doe allowing the 5th Circuit decision to stand? Sounds like one more step towards fascism

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

13 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

It should be noted that Thomas once went a full decade without asking a single question from the bench, so it’s, uh, interesting that he’s choosing this case that could possibly benefit his buddy disgraced former president Donald Trump to be so active and inquisitive.

this ended basically the day scalia died.

[Jive Turkey 12603]

While Trump is on trial in New York, oral argument on his immunity claim is being heard at SCOTUS. 

And the conservative justices are ensuring more delay tactics so that nothing is decided before November. 

Edited April 25 by Jive Turkey

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

Seen some hand-wringing that the Justices appear to be leaning in favor of some of the immunity claims.  Can anyone smarter than me confirm?

(Obvious caveat that what is said during oral arguments doesn't necessarily hold up when it comes to voting)

Edited April 25 by Chuckie Finster

['stache 21816]

15 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

While Trump is on trial in New York, oral argument on his immunity claim is being heard at SCOTUS. 

And the conservative justices are ensuring more delay tactics so that nothing is decided before November. 

 

9 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Seen some hand-wringing that the Justices appear to be leaning in favor of some of the immunity claims.  Can anyone smarter than me confirm?

(Obvious caveat that what is said during oral arguments doesn't necessarily hold up when it comes to voting)

Further proceedings are required either way, unless he's granted full immunity for everything, which even his attorney agrees doesn't exist. It sounds to me like everyone in the room agrees that official acts (talking with AG's, Congress, etc., on processes and procedures) are immune, but private acts (asking that those officials overturn the election results or "find more votes") are private acts of a candidate that happens to hold the office at the time. If anything, this appeal sounds like it was the delay tactic, because Trumps attorney sounds like he's admitting that absolute immunity doesn't exist, so I'm not clear what the court is being asked to decide. The fact determination of what acts were official and which were private was always going to be the job of the trial court. I don't have time to look back and remind myself what the DC Circuit held, but none of those clips gives me any pause, if anything, it's confirming that his "absolute immunity" rants on truth isn't something his lawyers are even claiming exists. 

[Red Five 40859]

Yes yes, more time is clearly needed. No hurry at all, considering that the subject here is running for fucking President again in six months.

[HenryJames 66075]

[Longhorn_Fan68 33872]

Can we ff to the point where scotus rules Biden can shoot Trump in the face and get it over with?

[Dnaguy 11969]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Can we ff to the point where scotus rules Biden can shoot Trump in the face and get it over with?

IDK if the matrix will allow this level of irony. I mean, it’s so ridiculous that millions of people will instantly detach from their power cords and our AI overlords will be in for quite the energy crunch.

[Red Five 40859]

I personally don't think that a President who tried to overturn an election he lost in order to keep himself in power should be immune from prosecution for doing that. JMHO

[Longhorn_Fan68 33872]

33 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

IDK if the matrix will allow this level of irony. I mean, it’s so ridiculous that millions of people will instantly detach from their power cords and our AI overlords will be in for quite the energy crunch.

it's EXACTLY what they are arguing. I can't wait!

 

 

[Mdhorn 5949]

35 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Can we ff to the point where scotus rules Biden can shoot Trump in the face and get it over with?

I was going to go with bone saw in memory of Khashoggi.   

[Dnaguy 11969]

39 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I personally don't think that a President who tried to overturn an election he lost in order to keep himself in power should be immune from prosecution for doing that. JMHO

 

The supreme court:

"This is a very complicated case, Maude America. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my  our heads, man. Lotta strands in old Duder's SCOTUS' head. Luckily I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug Fox News regimen to keep my mind, you know, limber.

Edited April 25 by Dnaguy

['stache 21816]

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

it's EXACTLY what they are arguing. I can't wait!

 

 

I'm pretty sure neither the president or anyone else can assasinate even a known foreign enemy. WTAF?

[Mdhorn 5949]

5 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

it's EXACTLY what they are arguing. I can't wait!

 

 

What about a corrupt SCOTUS member and his wife, especially if they could be determined a threat to the US?  Or something similar to the open window policy granted to Putin.  

Edited April 25 by Mdhorn

[cactusflinthead 27598]

 

[Red Five 40859]

2 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

What about a corrupt SCOTUS member and his wife?  What if they could be determined a threat to the US?  Or something similar to the open window policy granted to Putin.  

Seems like more of a "presidential act" than all the shit Trump did. 

[henrygandorf 29191]

i enjoyed the part about whether certain acts were done by "the president" vs "the candidate seeking re-election".

did trump do one thing in 4 years that wasn't in aid of his re-election bid?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33872]

41 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i enjoyed the part about whether certain acts were done by "the president" vs "the candidate seeking re-election".

did trump do one thing in 4 years that wasn't in aid of his re-election bid?

lol, yeah, his covid response

[henrygandorf 29191]

4 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

lol, yeah, his covid response

point of order, the defendant was too dumb to know the difference. 

[Js1 85347]

9 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

lol, yeah, his covid response

Well it helped turn out his base 

[henrygandorf 29191]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Well it helped turn out his base 

yeah, to the fucking morgue.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19101]

10 hours ago, Js1 said:

Well it helped turn out his base 

 

10 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, to the fucking morgue.

Unfortunately, it didn't turn enough of them to the morgue.  You had one job, COVID!

[tx 3 putt 76975]

12 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

how about if a president is serial farter in a court room ?

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

18 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

it's EXACTLY what they are arguing. I can't wait!

 

 

Don’t ask if he can order the assassination of a political rival. Ask if he can order the assassination of a Supreme Court justice. 

[Sawbonz 27565]

16 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Don’t ask if he can order the assassination of a political rival. Ask if he can order the assassination of a Supreme Court justice. 

Wouldn’t even need to assassinate any. If they rule for any type of broad immunity for presidential actions Biden should immediately lock up the 3 Trump SC appointees plus Thomas and declare the court open for business 

[yoladu 4094]

Good god, are they advocating codifying every possible decision a president makes as either private or an official act of the office. Where would the madness end?

How about you don't commit crimes already on the books, Mr. President?

 

[yoladu 4094]

Also, this feel like a case in which every Justice should recuse themselves.

Are you telling me Alito or Thomas don't have a vested interest in who the President is when they choose to retire? Using your power to delay a trial that could damage or end Trump's candidacy on super dubious grounds seems super sketchy.

[Brisketexan 105151]

21 minutes ago, yoladu said:

Good god, are they advocating codifying every possible decision a president makes as either private or an official act of the office. Where would the madness end?

How about you don't commit crimes already on the books, Mr. President?

 

It's fact-specific.  In other cases (state law cases), it is determined in the course of litigating the case itself.  Here's a good example:

Obama orders a drone strike on 3 dudes at a camp in Syria.  Likely an official act.

BUT...facts are introduced that 1) he had no intel informing him that these people were legit terror targets, and 2) he knew that one dude there was a dude to whom he owed a lot of money.  So, the facts demonstrate that the POTUS didn't order a drone strike on an identified target, but rather used the weapons of the US to achieve an entirely personal purpose and in doing so, broke the law (murder).

That's how the standard works for every other executive in the US, and we do just fine.

And the standard Alito was arguing for would 100% permit a president who loses an election to order, and conduct, the assassination of the winning candidate before that person takes office....as well as killing the VP candidate, and all opposing party leadership.  Indeed, nothing would stand in the way of the executive of a party (especially if the party controlled Congress, precluding impeachment) rounding up every member of the opposing party and executing them.  As well as any stupid-ass judges who try to stand in his way.

Alito is proposing an imperial, completely authoritarian presidency.  These people are as anti-American as anyone in our history.

[Dahobbs 17543]

22 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

So, the end of that was telling. He says that this concern is why the framer's had all these structural checks (but apparently not criminal liability) that for the last 200 years have prevented that kind of action from a President. The easy response to that is: until Trump. 

[Brisketexan 105151]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

So, the end of that was telling. He says that this concern is why the framer's had all these structural checks (but apparently not criminal liability) that for the last 200 years have prevented that kind of action from a President. The easy response to that is: until Trump. 

Yep.  The answer to "the prosecution of Trump is unprecedented" is "yes, because the utter disregard for the law by Trump is unprecedented."

[jimmyjazz 45960]

I know this belies a terribly naive viewpoint on my part, but wouldn't the Founding Fathers have codified Presidential immunity if they intended for it to exist?

[HenryJames 66075]

It's stupid that we're even talking about this.

[Brisketexan 105151]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I know this belies a terribly naive viewpoint on my part, but wouldn't the Founding Fathers have codified Presidential immunity if they intended for it to exist?

The answer is "yes, it would have been stated in the Constitution, like similar concepts are mentioned."  That's a "strict textualist" approach, it's one of the canons of interpretation they are supposed to follow.

The Alito wing will totally disregard that, because they are not actually "strict textualists."  They are right-wing authoritarians, who are angry and want to get revenge on a society they feel has wronged them.

[yoladu 4094]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The answer is "yes, it would have been stated in the Constitution, like similar concepts are mentioned."  That's a "strict textualist" approach, it's one of the canons of interpretation they are supposed to follow.

The Alito wing will totally disregard that, because they are not actually "strict textualists."  They are right-wing authoritarians, who are angry and want to get revenge on a society they feel has wronged them.

it's incredulous to me that a white man who sits on the US Supreme Court would feel that he has somehow been wronged in any possible way. He has the fucking brass ring.

Edited April 26 by yoladu

[Brisketexan 105151]

5 minutes ago, yoladu said:

it's incredulous to me that a white man who sits on the US Supreme Court would feel that he has somehow been wronged in any possible way. He has the fucking brass ring.

The problem is, there's only one amount of power and control that he wants: ALL OF IT.  Anything less means society is not giving him the due and respect that he deserves.