The Supremes

[David Dennison 19529]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

The vast majority of homeless in America do suffer from these things. 

So what? They still need somewhere to sleep at night.

[Satchel 6982]

4 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

So when do they decide if Biden can have him executed?

Everybody knows that Biden will not test the SC’s law, but the GOP damn sure will.

[Bozo_Casanova 26846]

Irony is dead:

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Biden needs to fuck shit up. I really cannot believe I’m typing this 

He should declare Trump a clear and present danger to the United States and have Seal Team Six kill him. 

(he really shouldn't do this, but he should announce it, and wait a couple days to see what happens)

[softlynow 1894]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

How many schizoaffective disorder alcoholic meth addicts have you personally encountered?

I've represented several dozen formally diagnose as schizoaffective. Several dozen more with other mental illnesses that contributed to anti-social behavior. I was appointed to represent them because they had no money or significant property.

 

Just now, Sawbonz said:

The vast majority of homeless in America do suffer from these things. 

And?

I think the question is whether they are homeless involuntarily. I'm not aware of people voluntarily becoming schizoaffective.

Just want to know where you're going with this.

[Js1 87176]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Irony is dead:

 

Fuck that guy.  Enjoy hell and all the ass rapings by Hitler.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13727]

I don't see that the Supreme Court did anything other than what we always knew the decision would be.

If Trump performs what is considered an official act of the Presidency, he's protected from prosecution. That has always been the understanding. If he performs an non-official act, he's not protected. 

I don't see how SCOTUS ruled on anything other than this. They didn't decide on individual comments or actions as having immunity or not. They're leaving that up to the lower courts, which in turn of course be back at this court next year. Unless of course, Trump wins and then he stops the cases altogether.

['stache 22131]

19 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Irony is dead:

 

JFC, you're the reason the Chief Justice and the traitor Alito are on the court you dumb mother fucker. 

[wildcat09 29579]

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don't see that the Supreme Court did anything other than what we always knew the decision would be.

If Trump performs what is considered an official act of the Presidency, he's protected from prosecution. That has always been the understanding. If he performs an non-official act, he's not protected. 

I don't see how SCOTUS ruled on anything other than this. They didn't decide on individual comments or actions as having immunity or not. They're leaving that up to the lower courts, which in turn of course be back at this court next year. Unless of course, Trump wins and then he stops the cases altogether.

They substantially changed what is considered "official" and greatly limited what evidence can be evaluated when making that determination. 

[DDD Dad 14647]

3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

[Satchel 6982]

I agree with Alexander Hamilton who wanted the POTUS to be subject to criminal penalty and not immune from it because he believed it would be the one thing that distinguished the POTUS from being a king.

[Biff Tannen 46163]

38 minutes ago, Woland said:

If you follow the Putin example, one of your first moves is to fire all the state governors and appoint new ones.

Does that include Hot Wheels?  Because...I might be ok with that.

[DDD Dad 14647]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

Are you saying I'm toxic?

[DaysOff 8201]

Honestly thought Ralph Nader was dead.

[softlynow 1894]

@Dbeasy, now that I'm caught up on the deck chairs arranging that is this homelessness argument, I just gotta say you have been a terrible advocate for this ruling. I think it was correctly decided, but seeing your posts before the ruling, I was initially inclined the other way. JMO, but you could do with some nuance in your argumentation. And you should focus on the actual opinion, not our general policies w/r/t the homeless. The first couple pages of the opinion do a good job of walking one through what should and should not be considered "cruel and unusual." That would've been a better place for you to ground your position.

Just a little constructive criticism.

[David Dennison 19529]

5 minutes ago, softlynow said:

@Dbeasy, now that I'm caught up on the deck chairs arranging that is this homelessness argument, I just gotta say you have been a terrible advocate for this ruling. I think it was correctly decided, but seeing your posts before the ruling, I was initially inclined the other way. JMO, but you could do with some nuance in your argumentation. And you should focus on the actual opinion, not our general policies w/r/t the homeless. The first couple pages of the opinion do a good job of walking one through what should and should not be considered "cruel and unusual." That would've been a better place for you to ground your position.

Just a little constructive criticism.

Would it be too snarky to call America cruel and unusual?

[Gap03 3386]

33 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

He should declare Trump a clear and present danger to the United States and have Seal Team Six kill him. 

(he really shouldn't do this, but he should announce it, and wait a couple days to see what happens)

If you're thinking about going there, kinda seems like you'd need to go full "Night of the Long Knives" - Alito, Thomas, Leonard Leo, Kevin Roberts and the other head fascists at the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, the Kochs, Jeff Yass, McConnell, etc.  All of these sonsabitches are hell-bent on destroying democracy, and you know they're going to be shopping for the next Trump once he's gone.

[chainsaw 10284]

52 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Irony is dead:

 

He could rock a hotdog costume

[tchookem 3967]

I don't see that the Supreme Court did anything other than what we always knew the decision would be.
If Trump performs what is considered an official act of the Presidency, he's protected from prosecution. That has always been the understanding. If he performs an non-official act, he's not protected. 
I don't see how SCOTUS ruled on anything other than this. They didn't decide on individual comments or actions as having immunity or not. They're leaving that up to the lower courts, which in turn of course be back at this court next year. Unless of course, Trump wins and then he stops the cases altogether.

And when it gets back to the Supreme Court?

[Art Vandelay 1712]

[David Dennison 19529]

3 minutes ago, tchookem said:

And when it gets back to the Supreme Court?

 

[softlynow 1894]

26 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Would it be too snarky to call America cruel and unusual?

I'll allow it.

[Nivek 17407]

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

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.

Removing corrupt officials for failing to do their duty, accepting bribes, and failing to hold themselves accountable to normal ethical boundaries (not hearing their friend's cases, not fact checking cases, being political hacks) seems like the responsibility of the leadership of this country.   Just call them enemy combatants and send them to GITMO.  

[Sawbonz 28216]

1 hour ago, softlynow said:

I've represented several dozen formally diagnose as schizoaffective. Several dozen more with other mental illnesses that contributed to anti-social behavior. I was appointed to represent them because they had no money or significant property.

 

And?

I think the question is whether they are homeless involuntarily. I'm not aware of people voluntarily becoming schizoaffective.

Just want to know where you're going with this.

This is beyond the scope of this thread, especially with what is going on with respect to presidential immunity, but if you have actually interacted with these people, you know a large percentage of them are beyond help for the most part in terms of getting them to a functioning level. The medications that help them stay in reality make them feel horrible so they don’t take them.  off medication, they hallucinate and often become violent, and are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. Add substance abuse on top of this, and it’s a horrible situation for all involved. They are a danger to the family members and loved ones, which is often the main reason they are out of doors in the first place. They are a danger to the other residents in group homes, and even when they are not, they are often unable to abide by the rules that will allow them to stay there. Giving them money does not help, because in those cases, they are not competent to manage their own finances and not cooperative with people put in charge of managing the money for them. It is very difficult to involuntarily commit this population, and even if you can, it is extremely difficult to manage them when they are in an involuntarily committed situation. It’s a huge problem

 

also, I would be interested to know how many of these patients were referred to you from directly off the street, and of those what has been your longitudinal experience with these clients over 10 or more years. Their prognosis is grim in my experience.

Edited July 1 by Sawbonz
F ing talk to text

[Henry Hill 3156]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Irony is dead:

 

Anyone else call tornadoes Ralph Naders?

[Nivek 17407]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

John Roberts and a lot of the other Republican party apparatchik think Nixon did no wrong and have set out to fix anything standing in the way of his successor.

Well, they blame him for the EPA.  Other than that....

[Ghost of LL 15698]

I think the under-reported revelation from the decisions of the past week is that bribery-for-pardons is pretty much completely legal, at least for the president being bribed.  There's no question that the pardon power is a core constitutional presidential function.  So what if he takes a payment in deciding how to exercise that function?

For my part, I'm moving my money out of my "flee to a non-extradition country" fund and into my new "bribe Trump" fund.

[troph 25213]

5 hours 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.

 

This is where I start too. Not sure if I should be freaked out or not, would love more analysis on a few points raised below. However, on its face, the idea of complete immunity from constitutional acts - no issue at all - question is was the act unconstitutional? Inciting and supporting insurrection clearly is not. Official acts? plenty of official acts, was the taking of a bribe an official act? of course not. Then all else, no immunity. There are concepts of immunity throughout the law, I take no issue with this basic structure, none at all.

 

5 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Immune, immune, immune. 

 

This was the first post that alarmed me. I doubt the dissent is pure alarmist rhetoric, but I guess it could be. I see all these tweets, order a drone strike on mar-a-lago and claim immunity. I don't think that's how it works. So I'm confused by the language in this dissent as it relates to the concept and application of immunity.

 

 

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

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.

 

I also don't have a problem with POTUS official speeches being deemed inadmissible as evidence. But I don't see how the Jan 6 speech was an official speech of the POTUS, it was that of a candidate. So again, I fail to see the huge concern here. But going back to a POTUS speech, if the POTUS says China, Iran and Russia are the new axis of evil and they must be stopped at all costs. Should that be allowed as evidence of a later crime? I actually think not.

 

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

 

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. 

 

I think this distinction is quite appropriate as well. I do think as soon as Trump and the AG decide to jointly do something that is unconstitutional or not an official act then their conversations are germane though.

 

3 hours 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.

I agree with this 100% as well.

 

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don't see that the Supreme Court did anything other than what we always knew the decision would be.

If Trump performs what is considered an official act of the Presidency, he's protected from prosecution. That has always been the understanding. If he performs an non-official act, he's not protected. 

I don't see how SCOTUS ruled on anything other than this. They didn't decide on individual comments or actions as having immunity or not. They're leaving that up to the lower courts, which in turn of course be back at this court next year. Unless of course, Trump wins and then he stops the cases altogether.

 

I'm here too.

 

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

They substantially changed what is considered "official" and greatly limited what evidence can be evaluated when making that determination. 

 

Which leaves me with this and the dissent quoted above. What are we or more specifically am I missing here besides the SCOTUS delayed like a M'fer making any trial only likely if and only if Trump loses the election (which in the end is what I suspect was their primary goal).

[softlynow 1894]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

This is beyond the scope of this thread, especially with what is going on with respect to presidential immunity, but if you have actually interacted with these people, you know a large percentage of them are beyond help for the most part in terms of getting them to a functioning level. The medications that help them stay in reality make them feel horrible so they don’t take them.  off medication, they hallucinate and often become violent, and are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. Add substance abuse on top of this, and it’s a horrible situation for all involved. They are a danger to the family members and loved ones, which is often the main reason they are out of doors in the first place. They are a danger to the other residents in group homes, and even when they are not, they are often unable to abide by the rules that will allow them to stay there. Giving them money does not help, because in those cases, they are not competent to manage their own finances and not operative with people, but in charge of managing them for them. It is very difficult to involuntarily commit this population, and even if you can, it is extremely difficult to manage them, but they are in an involuntarily committed situation. It’s a huge problem

 

also, I would be interested to know how many of these patients were referred to you from directly off the street, and of those what has been your longitudinal experience with these clients over 10 or more years. Their prognosis is grim in my experience.

I'm given their name and access to the state's file on day 1. Those with moderated to severe illness are almost always still in jail when I am assigned. I have seen a few of them a couple or many years later.

I mostly don't disagree with anything you've said. But I would add that the folks with less severe issues than you describe are also a problem we've decided to mostly ignore, outside of the criminal justice system.

One point I take issue with: we DO involuntarily commit. A lot. We just call it "arrest." Then we don't treat them, for the most part. I've had many, many discussions with ADAs and judges about whether any of our very limited mental health resources are available for a client. I'd say less than 5% of the time, it's even a possibility. A tiny portion of that get to treatment.

I would guess that 75% of our homeless population has a criminal record, even if we disregard tresspassing convictions, which is really just a Scarlet H.

[Gil Bang 26231]

On 6/28/2024 at 6:55 AM, Brisketexan said:

Order 66?

Biden needs to order a #6

[The Original Greaser Bob 2888]

I mean, if most of the judges and legislators and ex-Presidents weren't complete scumbags, the ruling wouldn't seem all that bad.

[Sawbonz 28216]

10 minutes ago, softlynow said:

I'm given their name and access to the state's file on day 1. Those with moderated to severe illness are almost always still in jail when I am assigned. I have seen a few of them a couple or many years later.

I mostly don't disagree with anything you've said. But I would add that the folks with less severe issues than you describe are also a problem we've decided to mostly ignore, outside of the criminal justice system.

One point I take issue with: we DO involuntarily commit. A lot. We just call it "arrest." Then we don't treat them, for the most part. I've had many, many discussions with ADAs and judges about whether any of our very limited mental health resources are available for a client. I'd say less than 5% of the time, it's even a possibility. A tiny portion of that get to treatment.

I would guess that 75% of our homeless population has a criminal record, even if we disregard tresspassing convictions, which is really just a Scarlet H.

Arrest is usually a revolving door unless they have committed a violent crime. So I don’t really consider that an involuntary commitment in the sense of addressing that individual’s homelessness 

 

eta the ones with less severe illness (assuming also no substance abuse) usually have family or friends who will take them in, or are at least capable of abiding by the rules in group homes. 
 

 

Edited July 1 by Sawbonz

[956 Worldwide 35592]

15 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I think the under-reported revelation from the decisions of the past week is that bribery-for-pardons is pretty much completely legal, at least for the president being bribed.  There's no question that the pardon power is a core constitutional presidential function.  So what if he takes a payment in deciding how to exercise that function?

For my part, I'm moving my money out of my "flee to a non-extradition country" fund and into my new "bribe Trump" fund.

Buying appointments as well. We already do that, of course, just now we can skip the “campaign contribution” pretense. 

[Sawbonz 28216]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

So what? They still need somewhere to sleep at night.

You got a spare bedroom?

[washparkhorn 9973]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Irony is dead:

 

The Butterfly (Ballot) effect:

[softlynow 1894]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Arrest is usually a revolving door unless they have committed a violent crime. So I don’t really consider that an involuntary commitment in the sense of addressing that individual’s homelessness 

Some of my clients saw arrest as temporary and desirable a solution to that problem, though those "commitments" were essentially voluntary.

[Sawbonz 28216]

1 minute ago, softlynow said:

Some of my clients saw arrest as temporary and desirable a solution to that problem, though those "commitments" were essentially voluntary.

Some. Yeah.  Far too many don’t understand enough to know they need help, or they do understand, have tried help, and would rather be dead than take the medication. 

[tx 3 putt 78675]

 

When does Biden start removing justices ?

[CooterBrown 18287]

Time for some executive orders like eliminating the electoral college.

[tx 3 putt 78675]

Just now, CooterBrown said:

Time for some executive orders like eliminating the electoral college.

north and South Dakota are one state 

PR is a state to keep it 50

['stache 22131]

10 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

When does Biden start removing justices ?

I obviously don't like this clearly political decision from SCOTUS, but I think people have it really wrong saying he can do this or do that without repercussion. The immunity is from criminal prosecution. The courts can still reverse any actions the president takes that is not authorized. If he has justices or lawmakers arrested and imprisoned, those people can still petition the courts that the act was outside of executive authority, and they'd be right. The courts can then reverse the decision (like they did Biden's loan forgiveness program which SCOTUS held was not within executive powers). The immunity would only prevent criminal prosecution against the president for kidnapping or whatever the criminal equivalent is of false imprisonment.

Edited July 1 by 'stache

[956 Worldwide 35592]

9 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

When does Biden start removing justices ?

He won’t. SCOTUS just made Biden the most powerful president in history and no one is the least bit concerned that he will behave any differently. 

[chainsaw 10284]

Just now, 'stache said:

I obviously don't like this clearly political decision from SCOTUS, but I think people have it really wrong saying he can do this or do that without repercussion. The immunity is from criminal prosecution. The courts can still reverse any actions the president takes that is not authorized. If he has justices or lawmakers arrested and imprisoned, those people can still petition the court that the act was outside of executive authority, and they'd be right. The court's can then reverse the decision. The immunity would only prevent criminal prosecution against the president for kidnapping or whatever the criminal equivalent of false imprisonment is.

How can you reverse the "core executive" act of kidnapping political enemies and secretly transporting them to an uninhabitable atoll in the middle of the south pacific?

[Red Five 41723]

Here's a glimpse into the future: 

Democrats: "We will not take advantage of this ruling. That would be wrong."

Republicans: "(salivating so intensely over the prospect of taking advantage of this ruling that they have lost the ability to speak)"

[Sawbonz 28216]

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

think people have it really wrong saying he can do this or do that without repercussion

[Sawbonz 28216]

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

those people can still petition the courts that the act was outside of executive authority, and they'd be right

[CTC2 2865]

8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I obviously don't like this clearly political decision from SCOTUS, but I think people have it really wrong saying he can do this or do that without repercussion. The immunity is from criminal prosecution. The courts can still reverse any actions the president takes that is not authorized. If he has justices or lawmakers arrested and imprisoned, those people can still petition the courts that the act was outside of executive authority, and they'd be right. The courts can then reverse the decision (like they did Biden's loan forgiveness program which SCOTUS held was not within executive powers). The immunity would only prevent criminal prosecution against the president for kidnapping or whatever the criminal equivalent is of false imprisonment.

You seem to be overlooking that the highest court in the land is in the bag for a scheme that never relinquishes power.  This delusion was a hallmark of fascism’s rise in Germany and Italy. 
“Hey, this is not as bad as it seems” is an attitude they are counting on. 

['stache 22131]

6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Do you seriously not understand the context of immunity from criminal prosecution vs. executive decision making in general? If your skepticism is that the court is bias and illegitimate, it just underscores that anything Biden does that is arguably outside of the executive function will definitely be reversed by SCOTUS (like student loan forgiveness) even if he's immune from criminal prosecution (which of course this SCOTUS would find that it doesn't apply to Biden, because reasons).

['stache 22131]

3 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

You seem to be overlooking that the highest court in the land is in the bag for a scheme that never relinquishes power.  This delusion was a hallmark of fascism’s rise in Germany and Italy. 
“Hey, this is not as bad as it seems” is an attitude they are counting on. 

I'm not saying it's not as bad as it seems, I'm saying that Biden can't just start making governmental decisions under the guise of immunity. SCOTUS would still undo anything that is outside the executive power, and yeah, if he's charged with a crime, they'd probably call it not an official act, because Biden, so the decision protects only Donald Trump, period. 

Edited July 1 by 'stache

[Goofyboy 3432]

I'm not saying it's not as bad as it seems, I'm saying that Biden can't just start making governmental decisions under the guise of immunity. SCOTUS would still undo anything that is outside the executive power, and yeah, if he's charged with a crime, they'd probably call it not an official act, because Biden, so the decision protects only Donald Trump, period. 

SCOTUS would be all new people appointed by Biden and loyal to him. So, when the case gets all the way to the new SCOTUS, they say he’s immune and good to go. Thats how a nice dictatorship works.