Originally published at: DOJ hangs Trump out to dry | Boing Boing
…
13 Likes
Good.
25 Likes
DOJ to Trump…
23 Likes
Trump is a 6000 foot squid covered in teeth? That checks out.
12 Likes
Appeals, lawyers, delays, minions in Congress. I am so tired of waiting for these things to come to fruition. He will run out the clock until the election or he dies. It is up to everyone else to not let that happen.
12 Likes
Ignorant Yuropeen here. IDK, but IS it possible that the orange one could (eventually) appeal these charges up to the (currently unfit for purpose) Supreme Court?
From over here, across the pond, it looks like somebody needs to do something about these goofballs. I hope it doesn’t come to that point, but I can imagine it happening, The cases get appealled all the way up and they smile and say “He’s fine, we find him innocent.”
1 Like
As long as it’s under fed jurisdiction - but despite the right ward tilt of the court, they’ve not shown any deference to Trump specifically. They’ve ruled against him several times on various issues. That’s not a slam dunk, then.
Just, FYI, the SCOTUS rules on constitutional issues - so, they could not find him innocent, they would most likely find a constitutional problem with the conviction in such a scenario.
But again, they have not been a rubber stamp for him, so… 
16 Likes
I’m confused - her successful lawsuit against him included defamation claims, so what was his immunity covering? And does this mean she can sue him again, for the same thing? (I know his post-verdict comments warranted the possibility of more settlements for her, but does this open up even more options?)
Needless to say, I hope she continues to drag him. I love to see all these court cases keeping him busy and draining his coffers.
4 Likes
If this crook and grifter can’t be brought to justice, the least I can hope for is that he spends the rest of his miserable life embroiled in legal proceedings.
12 Likes
And represented by a revolving door of underqualified lawyers who learn the hard way why nobody else will represent him.
12 Likes
There are actually 2 lawsuits by Ms. Carroll against TFG. From wikipedia:
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump is the name of two related lawsuits by author E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump, who served as the 45th president of the United States. The second suit (also known as Carroll II) went to trial in April 2023. In its verdict the next month, the jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, ordering him to pay $5 million in damages; Trump appealed the decision and filed a counterclaim.
In mid-2019, during Trump’s presidency, Carroll accused him of sexually assaulting her in early 1996; Trump denied the allegations. In November 2019 Carroll sued him in New York Supreme Court for defamation. In late 2020 U.S. Justice Department lawyers asserted that Trump had acted in his official capacity while responding to Carroll’s accusation, but by mid-2023 this argument had been abandoned. Following the May 2023 verdict, Carroll amended her original suit to include additional statements Trump made in a CNN town hall. A trial was set for January 2024.
In November 2022 Carroll filed her second suit against Trump (Carroll II). The suit renewed her claim of defamation and added a claim of battery under the Adult Survivors Act, a New York law allowing sexual-assault victims to file civil suits beyond expired statutes of limitations. The trial, presided over by Lewis Kaplan, was held at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in April and May 2023. Evidence presented included testimony from Lisa Birnbach and Carol Martin (who both said Carroll told them about the alleged incident shortly afterwards), a photograph of Carroll with Trump in 1987,[a] testimony from Natasha Stoynoff and Jessica Leeds (who both had previously accused Trump of sexual assault), and footage from the Trump Access Hollywood tape as well as his October 2022 deposition.[b
edited to fix block quotes
13 Likes
DOJ hangs Trump
out to dry
11 Likes
We don’t have a Parliament that can just change the whole system and replace all the justices with an ordinary majority vote — and even changing the number of justices is treated like a huge thing that won’t happen even though it wouldn’t be that hard
7 Likes
Depends on your definition of hard. Changing the number of Justices on SCOTUS requires an amendment to the Judiciary Act, or a new law. I’m not sure if that law requires a cloture vote, but even if it doesn’t, you’d still need a majority in both the House and the Senate to vote for it, and since Republicans currently hold a small majority in the House, it ain’t happening.
1 Like
Rules are for Democrats, apparently. Biden could nominate another justice and replace either Barrett or Gorsuch or both based on the precedent (or violation of the Constituion) that McConnell set. Just get them confirmed by the Senate, swear them in and have them show up like it’s no big deal.
If the justices that were included in violation of the Constitution insist on staying, then keep nominating more until the number of justices match the number of federal court districts, as intended.
3 Likes
He cannot just appoint another Justice. The number of Justices is set by the Judiciary. Only Congress can change that.
3 Likes
The Senate also has a Constitutional mandate to advise and confirm nominees, yet McConnell refused to do so. So I’ll ask again, are rules only for Democrats?
ETA: Also, there is no restriction on appointing justices. Just that the number of justices is set by the Judiciary Act.
6 Likes
That is a different situation. That was appointing someone to fill a vacancy. Right now, there’s no vacancy. If a Republican were in the White House and tried to appoint a new Justice without a vacancy, they would not be able to do that either.
To answer your question, though, McConnell broke an unwritten rule, not a law. The law says that a Supreme Court Justice has to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Senate is under no obligation to confirm every nomination, or even to give them a vote. McConnell’s bullshit around the nomination of Garland was saying that there was a rule about nominations in the final year of a President’s term when there was no such rule. And never had been. Hell, Eisenhower appointed a Justice to the bench weeks before the 1956 Presidential election. What McConnell should have done was just been honest and said, “We’re not going to give him a vote because no law says we have to, and Democrats don’t have the votes to make us.” It would have still sucked, but at least it would have been honest. And yes, Democrats could do the same thing. And they probably should. And what happened with Garland actually used to be fairly common back in the 19th century. I think the Senate refused to vote on almost all or all of John Tyler’s nominees, because Tyler’s own party didn’t like him. More recently, Eisenhower’s first attempt at nominating John Marshall Harlan II in 1954 lapsed without him ever getting a vote. There is no rule that the Senate has to even vote on a nomination. The rule is only that a Justice has to be confirmed by the Senate before they can take office.
4 Likes
He very clearly broke the letter of the Constitution, which gives the Senate the mandate (and power) to advise and confirm SCOTUS nominees. He did neither, from a position that is not an elected, nominated, or confirmed position nor is it even mentioned in the Constitution. The Senate did not advise the President on his appointee, nor did they confirm him. They didn’t deliberate as a body, nor did they vote. They ignored the appointee. Where is the word “ignore” in Article III?
Sure, they could have achieved the same end while following the Constitution, but it would have required holding hearings and votes, at the very least in committee. And then Obama would have appointed another if they voted to not confirm Garland. And they would have had to deliberate, hold hearings, etc on that appointee.
McConnell broke the law (if we consider the Constitution to be law). So again, why does he have the right to do so? What I’m proposing is that Biden has the power (and arguably, duty) to right that wrong.
That isn’t up to him. Senate Majority Leader is an informal title that doesn’t really exist and has no power granted in law or the Constitution. He doesn’t get to make that call on his own. And the Constitution mandates that the Senate has to do something in response to nominations, even if it means going through the motions.
3 Likes
Is there any kind of ceremony or procedure for the Supreme Court to accept a new member? Yes, if there is one, it’s an empty tradition that no one in their right mind would use to block an appointment by withholding it.
But… Look at what they tried to get Pence to do, and then there’s McConnell, as Senate majority leader, a position not mentioned in the Constitution, keeping a damned SC nomination off the agenda, one the the Senate’s chief duties.
If it ever gets to the point where the majority might flip, even through dead men’s shoes, the people who paid for those seats on the bench will grasping at any kind of crazy straw.
