The Supremes

[usmc0331horn 953]

8 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

The Supreme Court alone should make people think seriously on who to vote for. Trumps election in 2016 set these decisions in motion. Reelection of him will be far worse. How anyone can make a decision strictly on optics is childish and ignorant. 

I mean it did in 2016 and millions abstained from voting for Hillary thus allowing apprentice fascism into our institutions and its not going away. A majority of white women wanted Trump in 2016. They get what they wanted.

[Dahobbs 17,625]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The inescapable conclusion is that the justices in the majority actually want Trump to exterminate their political opponents.

Maybe they want Biden to do it?

[elfenix 34,322]

43 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

The legal system is a joke

People shouldn’t abide by it if only the poor are held accountable 

Personal responsibility is for poors

[Nivek 16,945]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

Roberts, C.J., in deep punt formation on immunity.

Immunity will be granted if Trump is in office or the next Republican.    

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

28 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Hey, let's elect Donald Trump and burn it all down! What's the worst that could happen? 

Seems to be where we are headed.

['stache 21,822]

Read the syllabus and parts of Sotomayor's dissent. The most disturbing part seems to be the new evidentiary rule that whatever the President said during an official speech cannot be used to prove criminal intent for non-official acts. Her example is that if the President during an official speech says that his opponent should be taken out at all costs and he later is charged with murdering him, the speech can't be used to prove motive to murder the opponent. 

So the syllabus makes it sound as though if the district court determines that his Jan 6 actions were not official and were in fact private acts of a political candidate, the case can proceed, which is probably what will happen, but the true protection they seemed to give him was some new strange form of evidentiary immunity, which is crazy. If that's what this really says, yeah, pure political bs. If nothing else, it ensures that if trump is convicted for Jan 6 crimes, another SCOTUS appeal is assured as to whether this new evidentiary rule was properly applied. The fascist justices of course intend that he not be convicted in the first place under these new rules. 

It's a whole lot of words that weren't necessary other than to protect the president. So even if the new immunity is not as extensive as they sound, Sotomayor is pissed af that they went well beyond the facts that were part of this case, and which seems to be a new tactic of this rogue court. I don't know the solution unless Biden, dems keep the senate, and Alito and Thomas die within the next 4 years.

[David Dennison 18,924]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Seems to be where we are headed.

And he just got the green light to do whatever he wants as long as it's "official."

[tchookem 3,903]

The Supreme Court alone should make people think seriously on who to vote for. Trumps election in 2016 set these decisions in motion. Reelection of him will be far worse. How anyone can make a decision strictly on optics is childish and ignorant. 

Trump just got the of those people in. The other 3 were nominated by good, old-fashioned, traditional Republicans. Blame Trump all you want, but he's just the problem right now, Republicans have been the problem all along.

I apologize for any previous vote that might have been complicit in that.

[WhatTheBuck 28,788]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Her example is that if the President during an official speech says that his opponent should be taken out at all costs and he later is charged with murdering him, the speech can't be used to prove motive to murder the opponent.

In other words, talking like a mob boss is A-OK. That’s just perfect because Trump talks exactly like a mob boss. 

[David Dennison 18,924]

This decision opens the door to fascism. 

Does anyone think the mainstream media will use that word in describing what just happened, or would that be impolite?

[Bozo_Casanova 26,494]

20 minutes ago, usmc0331horn said:

A majority of white women wanted Trump in 2016. They get what they wanted.

It’s like the whole country is turning into my house.

[Js1 85,430]

33 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

The Supreme Court alone should make people think seriously on who to vote for. Trumps election in 2016 set these decisions in motion. Reelection of him will be far worse. How anyone can make a decision strictly on optics is childish and ignorant. 

A lot of people from 2016 though are sure still proud of themselves, I'm sure.

As they continue to now parrot the Russian bot disinfo that the DNC has decided to throw the race, like 2016.  

[SubliminalHorn 6,806]

This country is a joke. It’s finished 

[David Dennison 18,924]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

A lot of people from 2016 though are sure still proud of themselves, I'm sure.

As they continue to now parrot the Russian bot disinfo that the DNC has decided to throw the race, like 2016.  

Those Jill Stein voters really showed us.

[HenryJames 66,132]

12 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The most disturbing part seems to be the new evidentiary rule that whatever the President said during an official speech cannot be used to prove criminal intent for non-official acts.

Barrett mentions this in her concurrence.

[Js1 85,430]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Those Jill Stein voters really showed us.

[HenryJames 66,132]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It’s like the whole country is turning into my house.

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,875]

51 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Biden’s first official act after this ruling should be to postpone the election.

nah, make it earlier.

[chainsaw 9,871]

Biden could declare Trump and his campaign enemy combatants

[Keef 771]

10 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Barrett mentions this in her concurrence.

I doubt I agree with Barrett on pretty much anything policy wise, but she does seem to have a shred of integrity.

[elfenix 34,322]

54 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I don’t disagree that the Republican Party’s motivations and actions are bad. But, I do believe there is one aspect of the Democratic Party’s views and policies that are also very very dangerous, but in a different way. 

Some of the policies go against one of the fundamental tenants of the values of this country.  Namely that an individual must take responsibility for their own actions. Too often, policies are in conflict with that value. Republicans do it too, so Democrats aren’t alone on that. But the Democrats do it more often. 

My dude "personal responsibility" is just code for "government largesse should only flow to people with wealth and poors, not the wealthy, are to be policed."

Partly this comes from the Kochs deciding to burn down government because they thought their own internal controls should have been the only punishment for benzene releases from their refinery (for which they were not personally responsible - their corporation was), and partly this is a further extension of Lee Atwater's quote.

Edited July 1 by elfenix

['stache 21,822]

1 minute ago, Keef said:

I doubt I agree with Barrett on pretty much anything policy wise, but she does seem to have a shred of integrity.

Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Gorsuch also show normalcy from time to time, but on the whole, they are still rogue and anti-democratic on many, many issues. They also refuse to acknowledge that Alito and Thomas are entirely political animals who refuse to do their jobs objectively. Fuck them.

[Gatorubet 30,246]

13 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Barrett mentions this in her concurrence.

“Now I’m President, won’t one of my Patriots orid me of this troublesome judge.”

<Judge is killed by MAGA soon after, note saying “troublesome” found pinned on body> 

“Oh well, nothing to do with me. “

[Dutchrudder 11,141]

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I haven't read it all, just excerpts of the opinion and dissents....but....MAYBE.  In other words, I'm trying to find a way to read the opinion and NOT be freaked out about it.  And I'm actually kinda sorta a little bit there.

Imagine that we're talking about a generic POTUS, not a shameless bad actor like Trump.  Hell, let's go with Biden, or Obama.  They commit acts X and Y while in office (say one is a drone strike on a target in Syria, another is some internal intelligence action, like a raid on a suspected terrorist information hub).  After they leave office, prosecutors decide that a crime was committed - maybe an American was at the site in Syria, and the president killed him with the drone strike.

Was a crime committed (or, more specifically, is he immune because his action was an official action)?

If the president acted on legit intel, and didn't know an American was there: official action, immunity.

If he acted on legit intel, which informed him that the American was actively engaged in terrorist activity: official action, immunity.

If he ordered the strike on his own, and the American killed was just a dude he owed a lot of money to: quite likely that is NOT an official action, even though he used official resources to carry it out, NO immunity.

 

It's a fact-specific inquiry.  And it's that way for most any government official.  The inquiry is often called an "ultra vires" inquiry - is it within the scope of that official's authority, and is it an exercise of that authority, or not?  The cops raiding your house under a search warrant is an official act where there is likely immunity.  If a cop just kicks in your door and steals a bunch of your shit, that's not an official act, and there is no immunity.  But in any case, it requires analysis of the exact facts of each case.

It sure seems to me like the court spent a lot of time restating what the law is and has been for most officials.  But I definitely need to read the whole thing at some point.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but wasn't the whole point of this going to the Supreme Court to decide whether the Jan 6 actions were covered by immunity? I think everyone can understand that some things the President does are official or personal. In this specific instance, is the President immune or not?  I thought that was the question going in, was it not? Did they pull some dumb shit to not answer the question and waste more time?

[Brisketexan 105,160]

2 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

Did they pull some dumb shit to not answer the question and waste more time?

From what I have seen, yes.  They stated a standard and said the trial court has to figure out if it applies....at least, I think that's what they did.  I'm working a bunch today, won't have time to read it all till later.

[4th&Five 41,560]

 

['stache 21,822]

4 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

I'm not a lawyer, but wasn't the whole point of this going to the Supreme Court to decide whether the Jan 6 actions were covered by immunity? I think everyone can understand that some things the President does are official or personal. In this specific instance, is the President immune or not?  I thought that was the question going in, was it not? Did they pull some dumb shit to not answer the question and waste more time?

 

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

From what I have seen, yes.  They stated a standard and said the trial court has to figure out if it applies....at least, I think that's what they did.  I'm working a bunch today, won't have time to read it all till later.

A part of the majority I read seemed to say that Trump's talks with his own AG are immune because that's part of the job, but that his pressuring state actors in Arizona and Georgia were not official, because he has no authority to direct state procedures. On its face, the syllabus of the majority opinion does not feel too out of left field (other than the evidentiary rule that I discussed above), but Sotomayor is fired the fuck up and is in a very rare tone. She concludes

"With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

That's pretty fucking powerful. It could be primarily about the evidentiary rule that is still confounding me at this point, but I think its far deeper to elicit that type of comment. 

[wildcat09 29,355]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

I don’t disagree that the Republican Party’s motivations and actions are bad. But, I do believe there is one aspect of the Democratic Party’s views and policies that are also very very dangerous, but in a different way. 

Some of the policies go against one of the fundamental tenants of the values of this country.  Namely that an individual must take responsibility for their own actions. Too often, policies are in conflict with that value. Republicans do it too, so Democrats aren’t alone on that. But the Democrats do it more often. 

But that's not what the case was about! This is just your own tangential rant about homeless people!

[SubliminalHorn 6,806]

Biden should make an official speech that his job is to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic and declare trump one and have him arrested. If civil war is inevitable, and it sure feels like it right now, then fuck it, let’s go

[wildcat09 29,355]

1 minute ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Biden should make an official speech that his job is to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic and declare trump one and have him arrested. If civil war is inevitable, and it sure feels like it right now, then fuck it, let’s go

He should arrest all of the justices in the majority of this decision as well. 

[SquishMitten 10,415]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and on my analysis....yes, the challenge here is that these standards were never contemplated with a completely rogue actor like Trump in mind.  They are made to handle people who step beyond the margins/boundaries.  Not people who just blow right through them, repeatedly.

Trump is indeed a stress test for ALL of our systems (see, e.g., the "failsafe" of impeachment), and our systems just are not up to the task.

The hard and brutal truth is that when you have someone willing to go so far outside the law....your likely solutions are also...outside the law.  And THAT, folks, is how you end up in a bloodbath.

In theory, that should make it easier. Ultra vires analysis can get pretty murky. But when somebody completely blows past the line, then it becomes a very simple decision. The problem is that it's clear the decision makers don't want to have to make the decision. And yes, I acknowledge that it's not unusual for the SC to issue an opinion like this where they lay out the guidelines and then kick it back down for the COA to rule on whether those lines were crossed. My complaint is simply how long it took. There's no good reason why a ruling as important as this shouldn't be moved to the front of the line in every court it comes into. And the SC should immediately come back into session as soon as the COA issues a ruling. Maybe Biden should order them to do so, and if they don't, have them arrested for treason or something. Seems like requiring 1 of 3 branches of the government to do their job would surly be an official action subject to absolute immunity. 

[David Dennison 18,924]

Fight fascism with fascism.

It's so crazy it just might work!

[wildcat09 29,355]

2 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

In theory, that should make it easier. Ultra vires analysis can get pretty murky. But when somebody completely blows past the line, then it becomes a very simple decision. The problem is that it's clear the decision makers don't want to have to make the decision. And yes, I acknowledge that it's not unusual for the SC to issue an opinion like this where they lay out the guidelines and then kick it back down for the COA to rule on whether those lines were crossed. My complaint is simply how long it took. There's no good reason why a ruling as important as this shouldn't be moved to the front of the line in every court it comes into. And the SC should immediately come back into session as soon as the COA issues a ruling. Maybe Biden should order them to do so, and if they don't, have them arrested for treason or something. Seems like requiring 1 of 3 branches of the government to do their job would surly be an official action subject to absolute immunity. 

Not only did they take too long, they didn't even really give any serious guidance on how to distinguish official from unofficial acts or say anything that might limit their ability to immunize him later if the lower courts find a way to say his acts were unofficial. They basically said "take a ton of time to figure it out, but when you do we're still probably going to take a huge shit on you and overrule you anyway."

Edited July 1 by wildcat09

[SubliminalHorn 6,806]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Fight fascism with fascism.

It's so crazy it just might work!

The die has been cast already. It’s inevitable. We’re finished 

[wildcat09 29,355]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Fight fascism with fascism.

It's so crazy it just might work!

Not all authoritarianism is fascism. 

[Brisketexan 105,160]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Fight fascism with fascism.

It's so crazy it just might work!

That's the real problem with shifting the "rule of law" window downward: that new spot becomes the de facto rule.

If you're playing football, and your opponent starts having their DL stab your OL when they rush the QB, and the refs decide "that's ok," then the NEW rule is "DL can stab the OL."  The rule is NOT "let's bitch at the ref and see if he'll change his mind and enforce the rules we all thought were in place."

That's why what the entire GQP has done is so fucking dangerous.  They think they're just changing the rules for themselves.  No.  They are changing them for everyone.  And while it always takes time for the opposition to wake up and start playing by those rules.....it happens, eventually.  So, if the rules are "there are no rules, use violence however you want," you will be a victim of those rules, one day or another.

[SquishMitten 10,415]

One thing about this that just really highlights the difference between the two parties is how they will react. Imagine for a moment if Biden took this ruling and did something that looked even slightly like it was for personal gain? The media would thrash him for it, many in the Democratic party would thrash him for it, and many of his voters would stay home. But if Trump were in office, he would immediately do something so wild that was obviously beyond the pale, and nobody would bat an eye (e.g., lead a crowd to overthrow the government). The parties play by different rules because voters hold them to different standards. As much as I wash Biden would be like "OK, let's fucking do this then, here's EO No's 1-100" and even if I personally agreed with every order, I truly believe it would tank his campaign because "that's not what a good Democrat should do!"

[David Dennison 18,924]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Not all authoritarianism is fascism. 

That tells you all you need to know about where we are.

Call me crazy, but arresting Supreme Court justices you don't agree with sure seems like fascism.

Edited July 1 by David Dennison

[UpperWestside 6,170]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's the real problem with shifting the "rule of law" window downward: that new spot becomes the de facto rule.

If you're playing football, and your opponent starts having their DL stab your OL when they rush the QB, and the refs decide "that's ok," then the NEW rule is "DL can stab the OL."  The rule is NOT "let's bitch at the ref and see if he'll change his mind and enforce the rules we all thought were in place."

That's why what the entire GQP has done is so fucking dangerous.  They think they're just changing the rules for themselves.  No.  They are changing them for everyone.  And while it always takes time for the opposition to wake up and start playing by those rules.....it happens, eventually.  So, if the rules are "there are no rules, use violence however you want," you will be a victim of those rules, one day or another.

Y’all have fun with all of this. I’ll hopefully have a place in The Solomons to live and work while y’all are dealing with some of the most hateful people on the planet. The history written by folks watching this in other countries, places that actually believe in the rule of law, will not be kind to these six justices. The GQP will probably build them a national monument in front of The White House.

[956 Worldwide 34,719]

What’s remarkable about this ruling is how utterly non-concerned SCOTUS and the legislature and the chattering class is that the current center-left POTUS might abuse it and begin breaking laws. It belies all of the noise about woke dictatorship and Democrat federal overreach.  It simply never occurred to any of them that a non-GOP president might try to break laws with immunity and so they celebrate it.  It really gives lie to who they are. 

Edited July 1 by 956 Worldwide

[tchookem 3,903]

Y’all have fun with all of this. I’ll hopefully have a place in The Solomons to live and work while y’all are dealing with some of the most hateful people on the planet. The history written by folks watching this in other countries, places that actually believe in the rule of law, will not be kind to these six justices. The GQP will probably build them a national monument in front of The White House.

Clarence and Ginny Thomas High School will be built in a low income, mostly black part of Baltimore.... the simulation has already decided

[Longhorn94 2,454]

 

[Pancho 44,860]

 

[tchookem 3,903]

That's the real problem with shifting the "rule of law" window downward: that new spot becomes the de facto rule.
If you're playing football, and your opponent starts having their DL stab your OL when they rush the QB, and the refs decide "that's ok," then the NEW rule is "DL can stab the OL."  The rule is NOT "let's bitch at the ref and see if he'll change his mind and enforce the rules we all thought were in place."
That's why what the entire GQP has done is so fucking dangerous.  They think they're just changing the rules for themselves.  No.  They are changing them for everyone.  And while it always takes time for the opposition to wake up and start playing by those rules.....it happens, eventually.  So, if the rules are "there are no rules, use violence however you want," you will be a victim of those rules, one day or another.

That Harvard Law Review paper was a real eye-opener for me. The shift you're describing will not be applied to Dems in our lifetime. SCOTUS is making everything go through them. Every law or presidential action Democrats pass gets scrutinized and challenged. Everything Reps do gets a rubber stamp.

All these principles and laws were written by men who thought they were smarter than everyone else because they were more educated than everyone else (having slaves work your plantation gives you time to become learned). They also thought that only learned men would be in positions of power and that even if one (or two) learned men attempted to abuse power, then the rest would step in and stop it. They never believed someone would be able to sidestep impeachment. They never saw a world where weaponized ignorance could win... ignorance couldn't vote. They were worried about a king, so they wrote a Constitution to stop one bad actor from making himself a king. It doesn't do anything about a small minority of bad actors burning it down from within.

[Captainant 27,680]

13 minutes ago, tchookem said:

They never believed someone would be able to sidestep impeachment. They never saw a world where weaponized ignorance could win... ignorance couldn't vote. They were worried about a king, so they wrote a Constitution to stop one bad actor from making himself a king. It doesn't do anything about a small minority of bad actors burning it down from within

What's more frustrating is the continued insistence from many of the legal community that this is how things are supposed to work, and that deviating in the slightest means becoming trump. As if our current path is not barreling towards an authoritian or future trump figure riding roughshod over our democracy. 

There's nothing to be fuckin proud of this 4th of July. In the last month we've seen the supreme court legalize bribery, gut the EPA and every other regulatory agency, and now make the president an effective king. What the fuck is happening 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

[Dbeasy 15,072]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

My dude "personal responsibility" is just code for "government largesse should only flow to people with wealth and poors, not the wealthy, are to be policed."

Partly this comes from the Kochs deciding to burn down government because they thought their own internal controls should have been the only punishment for benzene releases from their refinery (for which they were not personally responsible - their corporation was), and partly this is a further extension of Lee Atwater's quote.

 

55 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

But that's not what the case was about! This is just your own tangential rant about homeless people!

As these two posts indicate, you two, along with many other Cloak room posters, are so biased in your thinking that you can't even understand any rational moderate viewpoint.  You believe you are right.  You believe you are informed. But the reality is that you are as misguided as many of the right leaning Republican voters. It's why every moderate poster just gives up any discussion in this Cloak room, because it's dominated by deep left thinking progressives. And that's fine. If you can't see that prohibiting a city from telling homeless people that they can't campout in an intersection, or on the sidewalk in front of a business, or in front of your own house, that makes it pretty clear about your ability to think rationally.

[SubliminalHorn 6,806]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

What's more frustrating is the continued insistence from many of the legal community that this is how things are supposed to work, and that deviating in the slightest means becoming trump. As if our current path is not barreling towards an authoritian or future trump figure riding roughshod over our democracy. 

There's nothing to be fuckin proud of this 4th of July. In the last month we've seen the supreme court legalize bribery, gut the EPA and every other regulatory agency, and now make the president an effective king. What the fuck is happening 

I have a boomer patient that was lamenting that there’s just no patriotism anymore. He also said he would probably vote for trump. To keep my professionalism, I didn’t say much back. But if he mentions it again when I see him this week, I’ll let him know my patriotism is basically dead. I have nothing to celebrate this 4th

[wildcat09 29,355]

4 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

As these two posts indicate, you two, along with many other Cloak room posters, are so biased in your thinking that you can't even understand any rational moderate viewpoint.  You believe you are right.  You believe you are informed. But the reality is that you are as misguided as many of the right leaning Republican voters. It's why every moderate poster just gives up any discussion in this Cloak room, because it's dominated by deep left thinking progressives. And that's fine. If you can't see that prohibiting a city from telling homeless people that they can't campout in an intersection, or on the sidewalk in front of a business, or in front of your own house, that makes it pretty clear about your ability to think rationally.

Man, you have no clue what you're talking about. You're just bitching about homeless people and ignoring what the case was actually about. It wasn't "should homeless people pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Y/N?" It wasn't "can a city use its police power to do anything at all about homeless people?" It was "can a city put a homeless person in jail for camping on public property when they have nowhere else to go?" That was the question at issue.

[MrX 735]

2 hours ago, Red Five said:

So when Trump gets mad and nukes California, as long as he says "This is an official act" right before he does it, then he's cool? 

As long as he confers with his AG first…