Supreme Court agrees to consider Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution, delaying his trial

We have literally no reason to trust anything these fuckers are doing right now. They have had YEARS of shitty decisions designed to empower the wealthy and to strip any constitutional rights away from the rest of us… The entire political class in american seems committed to staying the course towards fascism and the current SCOTUS is no exception…

But hey… maybe the same fuckers who decided that I’m a fucking incubator have a good reason for dragging their fucking feet on a critical constitutional question that could very well mean the end of anything remotely approaching democracy… /s

13 Likes

We also have no choice, unfortunately.

Let’s just go check and see. Did the founders intend for the president of the country to be able to overthrow the legislature to institute themselves permanently, despite the vote?

How could we ever solve that mystery?

6 Likes

But we do. We have the power of the vote. And although it will take years to undo the damage done by the Trumpian fascists, it must be done. They played the long game to get here, and we were complacent in allowing it. Now, we are left to play the long game to repair and renew the democratic (small “d”) nature of our country. They are very aware of that power, and fear it terribly. Hence the “Welcome to the end of democracy” rhetoric. They cannot win once they have “awakened the sleeping giant,” and like the last time that phrase was uttered, it will be a long . difficult and painful battle to win, but there is no option. We must, so we shall.

14 Likes

They’re not “official acts” in and of themselves, but “conduct alleged to involve official acts” - it’s worded to give him an out by making allegations that there were official acts involved in his actions and he can allege that he was acting officially to stop the steal. SCOTUS is setting the stage for his dictatorship if he wins while trying to save enough face to keep their jobs if he loses.

1 Like

But that’s hard! Let’s just give up now! /s

4 Likes

Huh. Maybe Trumph is just a useful idiot giving the SCOTUS a case in which they can rule that they too have full immunity from prosecution.

Or at least set a precedent that would apply to their own cases.

2 Likes

Well, we made a promise we swore we’d always remember
No retreat, baby, no surrender
Like soldiers in the winter’s night with a vow to defend
No retreat, baby, no surrender

(It has been a little while on this one.)

If you’re gonna die, die with your boots on
If you’re gonna try, well, stick around
Gonna cry, just move along
If you’re gonna die, you’re gonna die

Can I tell you something?
Got to tell you one thing
If you expect the freedom that you say is yours
Prove that you deserve it, help us to preserve it
Or being free will just be words and nothing more

I can do this all day!!

6 Likes

Thomas can retire any time he wants on John Oliver’s dime. :rofl:

10 Likes

If so, I think Smith will just proceed with the case and force T**** to appeal. Get a jury conviction and it makes it much tougher for SCOTUS to justify overturning it.

Not to mention that, in the event that there is a big swing left in the 2024 congressional election, Thomas is likely to be impeached and if it turns out Alito or any of the others were running interference for T****, they would be subject to impeachment and removal, too.

9 Likes

Exactly, the only sane responses take seconds and range from “Hahaha, no.” to “Fuck no, that is insanely dumb. So insanely dumb we’re recommending every lawyer involved in putting this stupid, stupid argument before the court be disbarred for gross incompetence.”

9 Likes

I just don’t get it.
How can you convince someone that the world doesn’t revolve around them, when it actually does?

1 Like

I hope I live long enough to see the court tilt back to sane.

3 Likes

I too was surprised, once.

Once upon a time.

Same.

15 Likes

… that doesn’t really work

7 Likes

it doesn’t. Just because people try and act like that, because they have a huge ego or it’s good for ratings, doesn’t mean it’s true. Don’t buy into what they’re pushing.

7 Likes

Previously, the Dred Scott vs. Sandford decision was the worst in Supreme Court history. Let’s see if the Loathsome Six can top Dred Scott.

And I know: this isn’t funny at all. I’m probably on many lists for “bein’ a librul” - which means Socialist which means Murrka Hater which means Communist which means Threat.

It also means I’ve always used my library card, pretty heavily, but when you’re dead what does it matter?

If they decide the POTUS has immunity over…is it everything? Looks like it. Then Biden immediately warns Sotomayor, Brown-Jackson and Kagan to get out and take cover, then he bombs the Supreme Court, sends Seal Team 6 into Congress, and they machine-gun all the Republicans, then they capture Dump, tar and feather him and hang him from a streetlight near that park across from the White House. Guys like Bannon and all the Proud Children (or whatever they’re called) are rounded up and disappear into SuperMax prisons. Hey: “immunity”, right? As part of Biden’s “core presidential duties.” It’s effing insane. The very idea.

Still: it will probably go as bad as we imagine it could. I mean, why should we think otherwise at this point?

My gawd, it’s been 9 years since that fascist racist narcissistic lying boring bullying sociopathic know-nothing with the consciousness of a toddler came down the escalator and I confess: I’m near sick-unto-death of him being…viable. Get him out of the news forever. Please? Finally? Is there ANY sanity?

3 Likes

… that doesn’t really work

The article is limited to the Sixth Circuit view that, “[r]espectfully, the Supreme Court does not issue non-precedential opinions.” That’s counter to the clear statement that SCOTUS is limiting the ruling to only the Gore-Bush facts, but the 6th Cir. was unconvinced:

From Stewart v. Blackwell: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-6th-circuit/1445474.html:

Thus, we find the dissent’s claim that Bush v. Gore has no precedential value because the Court has not sought to “prove [Professor Hasen] wrong” empty."

Having “no” precedential value may indeed be “empty,” but that doesn’t translate to “precedential.” Courts often use the rationale (e.g., Stewart v. Blackwell analyzing facts using the same Equal Protection arguments used in Bush v. Gore) or even mere dicta, to guide their decisions.

I remain of the opinion that SCOTUS will rule in favor of Trump in Trump v. The Civilized World and in doing so, intend their reasoning to only once have the effect of law. The majority opinion stating little more than, “We want Trump to be President,” while the dissenting opinion runs volumes.

1 Like

You’re preachiing to the choir here, is just really grating seeing someone always get away with stuff that he should not be able to.
It feels like when I would tell my little brother “you won’t get away with that” and then my parents would just let him, and he would just sit there laughing at me.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.