SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

HughFreakingDillon

they are sending it back to the LOWER courts to decide official/unofficial, folks. 

The Juggler

HughFreakingDillon said:

they are sending it back to the LOWER courts to decide official/unofficial, folks. 

Hugh, they could have and should have just declined to take it up in the first place which would have sent it back there months ago. Instead they weigh in with the official/unofficial muddy water nonsense, giving Trump an out....and providing a framework for all kinds of criminality in the future, so long as it's deemed an official act. 

I don't see how anyone can take any comfort anymore that the courts will handle things appropriately or that that guardrails of democracy are firmly in place. Yada yada.

The courts have drifted way to the right in the last decade. Imagine how much more maga-y they will be if Trump wins in November. 

tbergs

HughFreakingDillon said:

they are sending it back to the LOWER courts to decide official/unofficial, folks. 

Big picture here, they sent it back to the lower courts to decide and do you know what happens then? The next appeal to the Supreme Court to challenge the lower courts classification if Trump doesn't get full exoneration. Unless the lower courts toss it out, it's going back to SCOTUS. Roberts alluded several times to them not being the first review, but final review and ultimately he wants the lower court to do the initial determination, which it should. Although, we know that then means a final review of those classifications will surely be challenged all the way back to them. Maybe they won't be shills if that happens, but if Trump is re-elected, it never happens and it surely won't be decided before the election. And bear in mind that their ruling also does not allow for the questioning of motives or any information obtained during an official act to be a part of the findings for evidentiary purposes.

I'm not optimistic about it, but I'd love to be proven wrong by this court.

cincybearcat

HughFreakingDillon said:

they are sending it back to the LOWER courts to decide official/unofficial, folks. 

Yup...which for this type of issue will likely come back to the supreme court on a case by case basis, vs the general situation they were reviewing.

cutz

Need to click the Link to see the video and hear what he said.

Republican Voters Against Trump

@AccountableGOP

Chief Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing: “No one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law.” (Sept. 2005)

https://x.com/AccountableGOP/status/1807882444663587082?t=hI0lB6-R5oAor1qJu_i5CQ&s=03

bootleg

Their near term goal was to just delay everything until after the election which this will facilitate.  Then any future crimes will just bounce around the courts for 5 years while they debate what is official and what is not official.  He won’t care what is decided after the fact because he’ll be 90 by the time anything is determined.  Plus he’ll just be stacking the courts in his favor in the meantime. 

The Juggler

bootleg said:

Their near term goal was to just delay everything until after the election which this will facilitate.  Then any future crimes will just bounce around the courts for 5 years while they debate what is official and what is not official.  He won’t care what is decided after the fact because he’ll be 90 by the time anything is determined.  Plus he’ll just be stacking the courts in his favor in the meantime. 

100%.

Even the hush money thing is now delayed until September. 

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Amy Coney Barrett wrote: "Take the President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection."

Right,  this is the act of the candidate.  That's different than Pence's role in the certification which is an official duty of the VP, the executive branch.  The one counter is whether he is acting as the president of the senate and therefore part of the legislative at that moment. 

which was the claim made BY pence to avoid testifying before grand jury.

ikiT

tbergs said:

I think people also need to understand that an aging Alito and Thomas would like to retire and they surely won't step down if Biden is re-elected so they need Trump to win so he can nominate the youngest possible conservative justices ever and solidify the ultra conservative stranglehold on the court for the next 30 years. I used to believe that justices just retired when they felt it was time, but it seems that more than ever, at least since the McConnell bullshit, that our SCOTUS is compromised and is now just as political as anything else in DC, which is why term limits and standards need to be ushered in for the good of the country, not one side or the other. Neither side should have an advantage, but that's what it has become.

FORTY+ YEARS

ikiT

HughFreakingDillon said:

they are sending it back to the LOWER courts to decide official/unofficial, folks. 

Tanya Chutkin.  Trizzy can appeal AFTER he loses.

ikiT

Act as the candidate UNOFFICIAL
Act as the POTUS OFFICIAL

He's screwed.

curmudgeoness

bootleg said:

Their near term goal was to just delay everything until after the election which this will facilitate.  Then any future crimes will just bounce around the courts for 5 years while they debate what is official and what is not official.  He won’t care what is decided after the fact because he’ll be 90 by the time anything is determined.  Plus he’ll just be stacking the courts in his favor in the meantime. 

Exactly.

And yes, the courts will have to separate out official vs unofficial, which, again, means that TFG can go do whatever he wants, say it's official, and then years after the fact a decision will (maybe) be reached as to whether or not his actions were indeed official. Gumming up the system is the point.

I was listening to yesterday's Bulwark podcast with Tim Miller and Tom Nichols. I don't always agree with Tom Nichols, but I think he hit the nail on the head with regard to this SCOTUS decision: They found a way to craft a ruling that provides an immunity shield for the orange menace, and for him alone, because no sane, decent, "normal" person would do the things he does.

Edit to add: Both Tim and Tom are former Republicans; these aren't "woke libs" who are appalled by the decision.

josevolution

So we’re all assuming that the felon wins in November? 

mace1229

bootleg said:

If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution?  If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them?  Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested?  Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump?  He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this.  It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.

The president does not have absolute power. This ruling did not give him absolute power.
Taking bribes and assassinating people for your own personal benefit is not official business. The president does not have authority to do those things, it would never be official business. Talking like this ruling will give a future president the ability to do such things is just absurd.

tbergs

mace1229 said:

bootleg said:

If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution?  If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them?  Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested?  Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump?  He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this.  It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.

The president does not have absolute power. This ruling did not give him absolute power.
Taking bribes and assassinating people for your own personal benefit is not official business. The president does not have authority to do those things, it would never be official business. Talking like this ruling will give a future president the ability to do such things is just absurd.

You're right, bribes aren't necessary any more because they can just give a "gratuity" after a job well done. As president he could say that the radical left threatens the safety of the country and officially act in the interest of national security or maybe the next stop steal event will be as president due to mass voter fraud.

We all know there is no low to how low Trump will go for power and money. Why is it absurd? Look what he has already done and what he's attempting to do. That's what's absurd, but he is more fit for office

josevolution

mace1229 said:

bootleg said:

If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution?  If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them?  Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested?  Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump?  He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this.  It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.

The president does not have absolute power. This ruling did not give him absolute power.
Taking bribes and assassinating people for your own personal benefit is not official business. The president does not have authority to do those things, it would never be official business. Talking like this ruling will give a future president the ability to do such things is just absurd.

So you’re ok trusting him for another term? 

gimmesometruth27

mace1229 said:

bootleg said:

If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution?  If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them?  Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested?  Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump?  He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this.  It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.

The president does not have absolute power. This ruling did not give him absolute power.
Taking bribes and assassinating people for your own personal benefit is not official business. The president does not have authority to do those things, it would never be official business. Talking like this ruling will give a future president the ability to do such things is just absurd.

until it happens.

josevolution

I remember everyone saying in 16 after he beat HRC let’s give him a chance let’s see what he’s going to do! Well we found out and now here we are! 

The Juggler

gimmesometruth27 said:

mace1229 said:

bootleg said:

If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution?  If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them?  Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested?  Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump?  He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this.  It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.

The president does not have absolute power. This ruling did not give him absolute power.
Taking bribes and assassinating people for your own personal benefit is not official business. The president does not have authority to do those things, it would never be official business. Talking like this ruling will give a future president the ability to do such things is just absurd.

until it happens.

I cannot believe people are still giving Trump the benefit of the doubt after everything we have been through the last ten years. 

The Juggler

It's absurd to think something like this will happen. Yeah?