Supreme Court Cases Thread

[CNS]

I mean, name one politician you could trust with that power? 

There is no human that can go through what is needed to go through to be president that wouldn't abuse the crap out of that power. 

Something like 20-30 companies would effectively hold that same power immediately upon the ruling being made.  Is this not setting up the king for a day scenario, but forever instead of a day?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Depends upon how broad it can be interpreted. Biden really should consider arresting trump and putting him in Guantanamo as an enemy combatant. They can sort it all out in December.

He could do it with supreme court justices, too. No need to expand the court that way.

[MadCat]

And the Legislature as well 

[cfbandyman]

Depends upon how broad it can be interpreted. Biden really should consider arresting trump and putting him in Guantanamo as an enemy combatant. They can sort it all out in December.

I enjoyed this

https://twitter.com/poorlyreasoned/status/1783501148487307430

[catastrophe]

I mean, name one politician you could trust with that power? 

There is no human that can go through what is needed to go through to be president that wouldn't abuse the crap out of that power. 

Something like 20-30 companies would effectively hold that same power immediately upon the ruling being made.  Is this not setting up the king for a day scenario, but forever instead of a day?

I didn't listen to the argument and don't know what the specific case issues are, but it seems to me like SCOTUS could easily avoid almost all the legal questions involved by just saying there is no way you can consider a president's conspiracy to undermine his own elected ouster to be an "official act" of a president. That is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous thing I could imagine any U.S. court ruling--much less the Supreme Court.

Trump's position is premised on the argument that he should only be subject to criminal prosecution if he is impeached and convicted by the senate, but if undermining the political process itself is part of the immunity then that qualification is meaningless in the hands of a tyrant, who could simply threaten/coerce/assassinate any who would seek to carry out impeachment proceedings. The democratic experiment would be over.

That may sound alarmist, but what I'm actually getting at here is "losing" this case only means that the Supreme Court declines to give clearer instructions as to whether immunity for criminal charges is ever an option for acts taken by a president. There's no way he gets out of facing charges for Jan. 6.

[sonofdaxjones]

Meanwhile #blueanon is standing by Barrack by claiming that in unilaterally (self) declared matters of "national defense" aka giving yourself the biggest paint brush in the world - a POTUS and the U.S. government can assassinate an American citizen.   

[sonofdaxjones]

Did a justice LOL when it was mentioned today that the DOJ was trustworthy?

Once upon a time the Prog-Libs hate hate hated the DOJ and the FBI, but after full assimilation, that's a bygone era

[DaBigTrain]

Obama 

[sonofdaxjones]

Oh . . . really really disappointing to hear a #blueanon justice reference a presidential administration as a "regime".

I was told that calling our executive branch a "regime" was very triggering for #blueanon

[sonofdaxjones]

Obama 

Someone is showing they don't have a clue . . . again and as usual

[star seed 7]

Solid legal analysis as always dax

[sonofdaxjones]

  @ StalkerBot.7

  about someone discussing actual court events that took place today  . . . in the SCOTUS thread

So positively #onbrand   

[CNS]

I mean, name one politician you could trust with that power? 

There is no human that can go through what is needed to go through to be president that wouldn't abuse the crap out of that power. 

Something like 20-30 companies would effectively hold that same power immediately upon the ruling being made.  Is this not setting up the king for a day scenario, but forever instead of a day?

I didn't listen to the argument and don't know what the specific case issues are, but it seems to me like SCOTUS could easily avoid almost all the legal questions involved by just saying there is no way you can consider a president's conspiracy to undermine his own elected ouster to be an "official act" of a president. That is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous thing I could imagine any U.S. court ruling--much less the Supreme Court.

Trump's position is premised on the argument that he should only be subject to criminal prosecution if he is impeached and convicted by the senate, but if undermining the political process itself is part of the immunity then that qualification is meaningless in the hands of a tyrant, who could simply threaten/coerce/assassinate any who would seek to carry out impeachment proceedings. The democratic experiment would be over.

That may sound alarmist, but what I'm actually getting at here is "losing" this case only means that the Supreme Court declines to give clearer instructions as to whether immunity for criminal charges is ever an option for acts taken by a president. There's no way he gets out of facing charges for Jan. 6.

Unless Trump wins, I assume.

[Spracne]

I mean, name one politician you could trust with that power? 

There is no human that can go through what is needed to go through to be president that wouldn't abuse the crap out of that power. 

Something like 20-30 companies would effectively hold that same power immediately upon the ruling being made.  Is this not setting up the king for a day scenario, but forever instead of a day?

I didn't listen to the argument and don't know what the specific case issues are, but it seems to me like SCOTUS could easily avoid almost all the legal questions involved by just saying there is no way you can consider a president's conspiracy to undermine his own elected ouster to be an "official act" of a president. That is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous thing I could imagine any U.S. court ruling--much less the Supreme Court.

Trump's position is premised on the argument that he should only be subject to criminal prosecution if he is impeached and convicted by the senate, but if undermining the political process itself is part of the immunity then that qualification is meaningless in the hands of a tyrant, who could simply threaten/coerce/assassinate any who would seek to carry out impeachment proceedings. The democratic experiment would be over.

That may sound alarmist, but what I'm actually getting at here is "losing" this case only means that the Supreme Court declines to give clearer instructions as to whether immunity for criminal charges is ever an option for acts taken by a president. There's no way he gets out of facing charges for Jan. 6.

Unless Trump wins, I assume.

There's still the Georgia case.

[Pete]

I mean, name one politician you could trust with that power? 

There is no human that can go through what is needed to go through to be president that wouldn't abuse the crap out of that power. 

Something like 20-30 companies would effectively hold that same power immediately upon the ruling being made.  Is this not setting up the king for a day scenario, but forever instead of a day?

I didn't listen to the argument and don't know what the specific case issues are, but it seems to me like SCOTUS could easily avoid almost all the legal questions involved by just saying there is no way you can consider a president's conspiracy to undermine his own elected ouster to be an "official act" of a president. That is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous thing I could imagine any U.S. court ruling--much less the Supreme Court.

Trump's position is premised on the argument that he should only be subject to criminal prosecution if he is impeached and convicted by the senate, but if undermining the political process itself is part of the immunity then that qualification is meaningless in the hands of a tyrant, who could simply threaten/coerce/assassinate any who would seek to carry out impeachment proceedings. The democratic experiment would be over.

That may sound alarmist, but what I'm actually getting at here is "losing" this case only means that the Supreme Court declines to give clearer instructions as to whether immunity for criminal charges is ever an option for acts taken by a president. There's no way he gets out of facing charges for Jan. 6.

Unless Trump wins, I assume.

There's still the Georgia case.

I assume Trump’s day 1  focus is to pardon himself and friends of any and all federal crimes, and petition the SC to stop that Georgia case.

[CNS]

The American Dream.

Do crime.

No consequences.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

I mean, name one politician you could trust with that power? 

There is no human that can go through what is needed to go through to be president that wouldn't abuse the crap out of that power. 

Something like 20-30 companies would effectively hold that same power immediately upon the ruling being made.  Is this not setting up the king for a day scenario, but forever instead of a day?

I didn't listen to the argument and don't know what the specific case issues are, but it seems to me like SCOTUS could easily avoid almost all the legal questions involved by just saying there is no way you can consider a president's conspiracy to undermine his own elected ouster to be an "official act" of a president. That is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous thing I could imagine any U.S. court ruling--much less the Supreme Court.

Trump's position is premised on the argument that he should only be subject to criminal prosecution if he is impeached and convicted by the senate, but if undermining the political process itself is part of the immunity then that qualification is meaningless in the hands of a tyrant, who could simply threaten/coerce/assassinate any who would seek to carry out impeachment proceedings. The democratic experiment would be over.

That may sound alarmist, but what I'm actually getting at here is "losing" this case only means that the Supreme Court declines to give clearer instructions as to whether immunity for criminal charges is ever an option for acts taken by a president. There's no way he gets out of facing charges for Jan. 6.

The fact that the court even agreed to hear the case at all should be incredibly alarming. I will admit I am no SCOTUS scholar and this may be a question for spracs et al but has SCOTUS ever agreed to hear a case that would directly (or maybe more precisely, immediately) impact so few people? Seems like usually they are ruling on topics that will then apply to several many Americans on day 1 and many more in the future. Even if presidents lived forever we are still talking about a ruling that will directly impact fewer than 50 total people (and that includes in the future bc if trump gets what he wants he will be the last president)

[Spracne]

How many people will those fewer than 50 people impact with their immune actions, though?

Also, my memory is a bit hazy, but I'm pretty sure it only takes 4 votes to grant certiorari. So merely granting cert is not an automatic indication of how the Court will rule. On the other hand, this Court sucks crap, so who knows?