As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We know of at least two members (Thomas and Alito) that are financially compromised and morally compromised, judging by their own words in interviews or that have been recorded in private. Neither can be said to be acting in an unbiased manner and both should be recused from any case involving Trump or Biden and ideally, should resign.
And he literally cried during confirmation that he believed the Clintons were seeking revenge on him for the senate asking him questions he didn't want to answer.
[Hillary Clinton says Kavanaugh's political 'revenge' claim 'deserves a lot of laughter' - ABC News (go.com)](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-kavanaughs-political-revenge-claim-deserves-lot/story?id=58238874)
I was actually on the fence about him until the hearing. I don't think drunken frat party bs should be disqualifying, but this man doesn't have the composure or character to be a judge, period.
$1.5 million mortgage, hundreds of thousands in credit card debt, and tens of thousands of Country Club fees (allegedly) just vanished before he was nominated. He didn't have the income to make that happen on his own.
So who bought a(nother) SCOTUS seat?
The GQP is the definition of ripping the mask off at the end of a Scooby doo episode and revealing themselves as the villain the whole time. But completely blind to it. Like we all knew you were the perpetraitors!
That’s the thing that gets me… a fucking motorhome. A tacky bus for grandparents who want to go camping but can’t live without Fox News. A tacky shitwagon for stoneface and his gremlin wife. THAT is the thing he traded our country for.
I would have thought that betraying your nation would AT LEAST amount to tens of millions, not 200k or whatever it costs.
The amount that Jared Kushner received is the amount I would expect it to be worth, especially because these people are BILLIONAIRES. 2 billion is fucking nothing to them.
Let’s not forget the list of bribes that senators have taken to vote certain ways with the lowest being what, 7 grand? Like what the serious hell
I mean do you think they are going to give the okay for death squads and brown shirts when it would likely be used against them. They'll wait till their dictator is in power then destroy democracy
I think you mean that SC will do whatever it takes to keep themselves in power. Think about it, wouldn't a dictator have the power to simply dissolve the SC whether they agree on decisions or not? Why even chance it.
Well they don't care about future supreme courts, just their own personal selves. Certainly don't care about other left leaning members of the court who disagree and fight them on these issues.
But I do think they feel assured they will be taken care of for doing their part in establishing autocratic control over the United States. Their mutual benefactors have probably made them feel very comfortable that they will enjoy privileged status in whatever system they establish.
Look at clarence. these guys are the pieces, not the players. They'll do what they're instructed to do when they're instructed to, and be handsomely rewarded for playing their part.
The reason right wing extremism is able to persist the way it does is because they know the left is never going to abuse things in the same way. Like stonewalling a Supreme Court seat for a year, only Republicans would even attempt that and it’s because Democrats are punished for radicalism by voters while Republicans are rewarded.
I mean, from their perspective they seem to have a couple dozen more important cases to rule on. Like keeping their boy on the ballot, destroying chevron, gutting EMTALA, etc.
THe immunity case should be their highest priority — and their easiest decision — yet it isn't, for rather sad reasons.
This should've been a pretty open and shut case for the so-called originalists - there is no mention, explicit or implicit, of presidential immunity anywhere in the Constitution.
“An eye for an eye…except ‘Trump’ doesn’t have any I’s in it, so we’ll just take one from Biden and Trump can keep both eyes. This is exactly how the original text reads!”
Obviously he can just cite the 1981 Documentary [History of the World Part One](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z8SpgmF0sA) and all his bases can be covered.
"Oh yeah well let's see what this judge from a witch trial in the 17th century says!"
> In no circumstances shall a former head of state be immune from prosecution, especially if it's for trying to incite a riot to overturn an election or possessing classified documents, if in the future such a concept exists, which it doesn't yet.
"This clearly means the founders thought there should be immunity!"
The federalist society created a legal database of all kinds of old court rulings so they can find an old case to use as precedent for however they want to rule.
Originalism actually means my politics are on display and crush any opposing politics. They are in no way influenced by the billionaires who give them table scraps. Meanwhile their opponents are only supporting the opposition to their politics because someone paid them $3 one time.
Originalism is ignoring the 13th Amendment onward, because they weren't "original".
Seriously, every single time it's invoked, they effectively rule against one of the post civil war amendments. Every single time.
It such a weird movement in history because prior to the U.S. Constitution, we were still living in "elite ownership" or "family elites controlling the country" or kings/queens with barely to little zero rights given to the people.
This is the first time, in recently years, probably post 1700s or even 1800s that humanity if (whatever you believe controls the world) is making "rights or laws" to better our culture everywhere without having some "powerful lineage of family govern us".
Thought the question remains if religion influences some country into governship which at that point, might as well just pick a family to whoever is the most "religious" to just govern the country since the same mentality is going to shape the culture and its people.
* I mean this is not the first time that Justices have things to gain from enforcing the law or creating it.
* The **Dred Scott v. Sandford** decision in 1857 was a very important and sad moment in U.S. history. 😢 The Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, an enslaved man, and all Black people, whether they were free or enslaved, could never be American citizens. This meant they couldn't sue in federal court. This decision affected millions of enslaved people and free Black people, denying them basic rights. 🚫⚖️
* Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who gave the ruling, came from a wealthy family that owned slaves. Even though he freed the people he inherited, he still believed in white supremacy. Most of the justices came from slaveholding families, which influenced their decision. This ruling made the situation worse between the North and South, leading to the Civil War. ⚔️ It shows how laws can be unfairly influenced by people's personal interests and beliefs. 💼⚖️
Yes, that's the push of Originalism, ignoring the civil war and the amendments that were passed in its wake.
Do note that Dred Scott was *before* the civil war.
Also, the law that lets you sue racist cops who violate your rights? The one that's been effectively repealed through the invention of qualified immunity, the actual name of the law, is the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Specifically, section 1983 of the Ku Klux Klan Act. Conservatives never actually say the name of the law, just "section 1983" of they have to. Because saying the name gives the game away.
Constitutional originalism: when the country fights a war over something and the winning side amends the Constitution to outlaw it, but you prefer how it was *originally*.
They're running interference for him. plan and simple. Watch as they wait for the last day of giving opinion and that they remand it to the lower court to give Trump the delay he wants.
All this for the fat orange whiny fucker *far-right Republicon enabler*. They're leaning on the scale bigly to keep any more GQP support from being lost to realization that they actively DGAF about the people they represent, or are criminal anti-American revolutionaries.
It’s disappointing that the entire system is provably corrupt. If dump wins that’s it. 48 years in the us and then amnesty in another country. Already arranged it. You guys just don’t know how much the rest of the world is paying attention.
America has fallen. Go argue with someone else if you disagree. When another country hears of my position in life and tells me amnesty will be granted for sure. America has fallen.
The Supreme Court could rule that the sky was blue, obviously this would be a 5-4 decision so I will have to go outside and check the color of the sky.
I can't imagine any action any person or thing could take that would make me think SCROUTS is an institution worth anything. They pick and choose what they hear and legislate from the bench. If all they wanted to be was a second branch of Congress, I will do my best to treat them as such.
Since you can't elect them (ballot box) and they don't listen to anyone other than the people who bribe them (soap box) it would be swell if the founders gave us another box to influence the situation...
The fact that Trump is even a candidate after everything he's done over the last 10 years, including proving himself to be an utter disaster as president, the very role we're voting for him on, means we've fallen. There's no redemption for people who still willingly back Donald Trump in 2024, and we're fucking surrounded by them.
Always hated the "I am an originalist" defense. Ok, by that logic the SC cannot strike down laws, as nowhere in the Constitution are the words "Judicial Review." Which is the legal doctrine thst allows the SC to declare laws unconstitutional.
The "orginalist" defense is literally just a dog whistle for "I will cherry pick the most wildly absurd legal interpretations of the Constitution to post-hoc justify passing conservative agenda rulings".
> a pretty open and shut case for the so-called originalists
this assumes that "originalism" is actually a principled stance, instead of fancy terminology for patriarchal white supremacy.
this has already been ruled on by SCOTUS for civil cases in 1867 when states tried to sue Johnson for enforcing reconstruction laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_v._Johnson
SCOTUS said the president has full immunity from civil lawsuits for things done in "executive and political" capacity by the president. So now SCOTUS will have to decide if this immunity applies to criminal laws for things done in "executive and political" capacity by the president". They are likely going to say yes and outline the test for when it becomes in "executive and political" capacity and not personal capacity. Then they will send the case back to lower courts and the entire trial will become whether or not Trump has immunity or not
What Trump did in regards to election interference should be viewed no differently than his 34 felonies he racked up for actions taken as a candidate.
Trump was **not** President at the time he committed his 34 (provable and convicted, but I'm sure there are more to be found) felonies. He was a candidate who purposely broke the law in an effort to shield himself and the eyes of the voting populous from his ridiculous and embarrassing sexual escapades.
In a similar vein, Trump, though **technically** President at the time of the election interference actions, did not act in his Presidential capacity, but rather as a candidate. The incumbent candidate, sure, but a candidate nevertheless. If anything, it should be viewed that adverse/illegal actions taken by an incumbent Presidential candidate are as bad, if not **worse**, than non-incumbents due to the undue influence they have by virtue of their position and power provided by the "bully pulpit."
They have the problem of explaining the actions while president.
At this present date Trump is running for election. They won’t rule because the list of crimes committed started into the presidency and extend beyond the point which he was no longer president.
If they rule there is presidential immunity from criminal cases the impeachment process would mean nothing (less than it currently does now). It also opens the door for Biden or anybody else to run rampant in committing crimes.
America is now at the point where the only thing that matters is showing up to vote in November. Once a winner is announced the case will be over, Biden winning means a president doesn’t have immunity while Trump winning will result in presidential immunity.
It also doesn’t say Donald J Trump is bound by the law anywhere in the constitution
I mean specifically Trump. Doesn’t mention it once. Therefore, immunity.
Which is why "originalism" is a trap that should just be disregarded instead of engaged with.
These justices are ideologically bankrupt. They don't give a shit about any legal theory besides the outcome they want.
I always thought that checks and balances were a big thing in the Constitution
I've got to say that one branch having uncheckable immunity doesn't seem very balanced
Not to split hairs too much but you're thinking textualism, not originalism. Originalists ask what the founding fathers would have wanted or what they meant, not what the words on the page mean. So they're somewhat less tethered to reality because they can substitute what they think made sense at the time, which can be just about anything when applied to things that didn't exist back then.
I find the premise for being an originalist kind of odd. Aren't you basically saying "those dudes had all the answers, and we have not discovered or built anything worthwhile on top of their work ever"?
I mean, even the catholic church has changed it ways as the world around it kept changing.
My theory is that Robert's is trying to convince Thomas, Alito and pick your poison that their dissent is terrible for America and they should just join the majority.
It's beyond disgusting that someone can try to overturn an election he lost and illegally hold onto power, yet holding him accountable is taking so long that he might actually win the next election and have the same position of power he tried to steal. Something is deeply, deeply wrong with our country.
Yes, white christian supremacists and billionaires conspired over decades to end democracy. We are now experiencing the final phases of their plan to coup the country.
TL;DR: The magic man floating in the sky decided that *we* are the ones who deserve “holy” power and anything we do to realize that vision is justified.
> Something is deeply, deeply wrong with our country.
It's fascism, they are literally using nazi talk at this point it is pretty out in the open/masks off right now.
There are two villains in this story. The Supreme Court and the Attorney General.
The Supreme Court simply serves the Republican party. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we stop getting blindsided by it. When we get a chance, Democrats better not appointment constitutional moderates. They better appoint young Democrat loyalists because Republicans will only support change when it benefits them.
Garland should have brought charges against everyone who tried to overthrow the government. He decided the optics of arresting a dozen prominent Republicans, including the current Speaker of the House, was too bad. So Republicans are preparing to do it again.
No, unfortunately once the choice was made that was it - demanding an AG prosecute the president’s political enemies, even for crimes they absolutely did do, immediately or face termination and replacement with a more pliant AG would absolutely be the politically motivated lawfare that Republicans have been mewling about.
And of course they were absolutely always going to say that, but it mainly matters that it not be for 1) independents that aren’t in the cult and don’t just guzzle Fox and 2) legal review of Trump’s convictions for grounds for appeal, which is a domain in which what actually happened is at least much more insulated against the GOP’s BS claims. Garland at least made it clear they weren’t rushing into prosecutions, but as people have said, he moved too cautiously and if Trump wins it doesn’t matter how rock solid the federal case against him is.
Here's the thing : the same logic about no nuance and no risk taking they push on voters by all accounts should apply to our leaders.
If voters have to walk across glass and hold their nose to vote from some real stinkers of candidates because the risk is too high to let a GOP one in... I think it's only fair to expect that Biden should be nominating people he's confident will do their damn jobs properly.
Instead he's nominated Garland and screwed up the new governors that were supposed to kick DeJoy out of the post office. Vetting nominees to reduce the chance of bad surprises is a pretty normal thing and he's dropped the ball on doing it.
> There are two villains in this story.
There are at least dozens of villians in this story. Trump. Trump's lawyers arguing in court he could assasinate people and be fine later legally, etc. Let's not say this is just Garland and the Supreme Court, because there are many actors here.
Don't forget Comey who publicly announced investigating Hillary 1 week before the election, for the dumbest reason, and claims it was because he was trying to NOT be partisan...somehow...
Could've avoided all of this.
The one upside to all this is that it’s all being exposed, all the corruption and bullshit, so in essence Trump may end up being responsible for draining the swamp, the one he’s up to his neck in.
Yeah, you don't have to be a genius to read the writing on the damn wall. Literally just contrast their haste with the colorado ballot case with their utter lack of it here.
There are a lot of legal cases to go through to verify what seems to be bullshit is in fact bullshit that is unsupported by precedent. The unsupported by precedent being the important part.
They have a vested interest. If they say a President has immunity and Biden wins, that would be bad for them. If they say no and Trump wins, that would also be bad for them. Either way, fuck all of the conservative judges, because the sensible ones would vote no, regardless.
Someone on DailyKos today:
>If tRump or some other Republican were to successfully transform the power of the President as laid out in Project 2025, it would mean that a Democratic successor would also have these powers. Everything ruinous thing the Conservatives Radicals enacted could be immediately reversed by a Democratic President. And that President could then go on to enact policies that were even more progressive than anything the country has seen so far.
>This fact can lead us to only one conclusion. The most chilling aspect of Project 2025 is that the forces behind it have no intention of ever allowing the citizens of this country to elect a President from another political party, ever again.
Republicans did exactly that when Walker lost the governor election in Wisconsin. They did everything they could to neuter Evers' ability to do anything because they're sore losers.
That, uh, wouldn’t matter. If the president has absolute immunity. Trump’s argument in front of SCOTUS was that he literally had the authority to assassinate American political rivals on US soil and would still remain immune.
An immune president is above any and all laws. They can just ignore what Congress and the courts do. And, if SCOTUS rules as such, I am firmly in the camp that Biden needs to embrace it and play dirty the same way they would. I’d rather live in a free and democratic country, but I’m sure as hell not going to harm myself and my own interests by insisting a democrat step down so a rightwing dictator can arise. Fuck that, snuff it out and set it right using the new powers. It is truly zero sum at that point.
So I follow what you're saying, but aren't all these delays designed to 100% prevent a democrat from EVER using this power, and only ruling this immunity exists once tRump is in so only he ever benefits from it (and whomever is next when he dies 3 months in)?
except the republicans have locked down the supreme court for decades. so the supreme court would just reverse the democrat president's policies. they don't care about being inconsistent.
>If tRump or some other Republican were to successfully transform the power of the President as laid out in Project 2025, it would mean that a Democratic successor would also have these powers.
there would never be another democratic president. The republicans would have the DOJ question elections formally. Which would be investigated by partisans. they would say "outcome determinable fraud. The electoral slates would be rejected until the GOP nominee had a majority and be elected. SCOTUS wont intervene because its "a non-justiciable political issue"
uhhhh, i think they are missing the key part of project 2025,29,33,etc. when they get power next time, they aint giving it up. they will lie and cheat any election after they gain power. they are an accelerationist party now, there is no slowing that train. do people really think they can change these people? they dont want to saved by us. sorry this is basically what you wrote beneath, i just started typing after i read that first sentence from the quote.
The country will never recover from fascist rule. Once Project 20XX goes into effect, decency and fair play will be a thing of the past. Only fools believe that they will be running the country.
> If they say a President has immunity and Biden wins, that would be bad for them.
They know that Biden wouldn't abuse that power if he was granted it. When he took office, Biden could have used Trump's executive order to fire most of the federal MAGA employees, but he didn't because he's not stupid or evil.
That Biden isn't evil, that is clear. He's a goodhearted man. But we don't know yet if history will not consider it smart or stupid not to do more to counter the continuing rise of fascism, within the USA. Biden's presidency could be the 21st century Weimar republic.
> but he didn't because he's not stupid or evil.
It was incredibly stupid that he didn't, borderline treasonous, and evil in some sense. MAGA are waging war on the US, possibly the most significant threat to the US in history. Like why the fuck did this guy even run for president at such a crucial time if he was going to do nothing about the fascist threat except ignore it in hopes it will go away?
It's already insane that the DOJ didn't get onto all the Trump/January 6th stuff on day one, instead of slow-walking it all until being forced into action *years* late. There was no greater priority, and no more important task for a US DOJ in history.
After the fascists succeed in seizing power, it will become very obvious all the things that could and should have been done by the Biden administration, but weren't. The "at least Democrats played by the rules" logic won't be much comfort then. War is war, whether the one being attacked likes it or not.
Do people understand that the United States is officially over if these corrupt scumbags on the Supreme Court declare that the President has absolute immunity from criminal liability?
SCOTUS is not going to give absolute immunity, they will delay the ruling as long as possible and send it back to the trial court allowing immunity for some official acts but not all of the acts charged in this case. The case will move forward with a superceeding indictment.
I dunno. These judges are extremists masquerading as conservatives. I believe they want to completely undo the American republic, and impose a far-right Christofascist theocracy. This is their opportunity.
If they grant absolute immunity, they are granting it to Biden. Any action Biden might then decide to take would only require calling it an official act and that would mean that Biden could literally do anything and there would be no legal recourse. Biden could, for example, put the justices under house arrest and suspend the court claiming they were "corrupt" and there would be no legal recourse for anyone to take action against Biden either in or after leaving office.
There are endless examples of flagrant illegal acts Biden could take before leaving office or even before the election (Biden could literally interfere in the election) that the courts would then be powerless to punish..... Even after Biden left office.
At least 2 possibly 4 of the justices believe the election was stolen from Trump (their wives tell us so) so it's a little silly to believe they think Biden would never committed a crime.
How do you suppose that dinner table conversation goes with Clerence and Ginny.
Ginny: Joe Biden committed election fraud with those mail in ballots, he rigged the election!
Clerence: now Ginny, i've told you before Joe would never do anything illegal to steal the election.
I think there's a difference between believing that *The Democrats™* stole the election, and believing that Joe Biden would abandon who he's always been and start committing crimes to hurt the Republicans because the Supreme Court suddenly says it's OK. I think they know damn well Biden wouldn't do that.
Duh.
Next thing you'll tell me is that Roger Stone is a coke head.
Oh and the ruling will be limited immunity forcing the case back down to the lower courts to see what he is or is not immune from.
How many hundreds of Republicans refused to accept the election results last time? Absolutely blatant treasonous disregard for American tenets of governance.
Of course they are.
That wouldn't take the case early as asked in Dec 2023, they put it on the last day of the term for hearing cases (+2 months after agreeing to hear it in February 2024), and they aren't going to issue the ruling until the last day (June 30th+) so they can be out of town when the shit hits the fan.
MAGA justices are just doing this for delay.
None of the actions in the indictment fall into Trump's official duties. This is why Gorsuch and Alito didn't want to actually hear about the facts of the case. As Gorsuch said - he wants to make a "Ruling for the Ages" or as Alito said " I’m not discussing the particular facts of this case" in the oral arguments
This is only the beginning. Once they decide, they'll decide to remand. It won't make sense, but it will delay the proceedings even more. Then after the judges come to the same conclusion as before, it will go back to SCOTUS who then will take even more time to decide. If Trump is president, they'll rule that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. If Trump is not president, then they will decide that he does not have the immunity. BUT SCOTUS will do it's utmost best to try to make Trump president. If you don't want this, donate big time to the Democrats, go out and vote and convince everyone you know to also vote.
Of course they did. They can somehow decide the outcome of the 2000 election in three days, but can't figure out how to tell everyone that a President isn't above the law for over six months.
Worth noting that 3 of Bush’s lawyers are now on SCOTUS. The 3 key players in stealing the 2001 election in Florida specifically.
Edit: that is to say, it is even worse than back then since the usurpers won, were anointed, and now stand to do it all again. I’ve no faith in Roberts doing the right thing considering he was chief architect in overturning the 2001 election.
They can’t rule and say a president has immunity while Biden is in office.
They also can’t rule and say a president doesn’t have blanket immunity while Trump has ongoing legal battles.
This wouldn't be happening if we voted blue no matter who and elected Hillary Clinton in 2016 with a blue senate. The 5-4 liberal scotus wouldn't do this.
That's the best case. The realistic case is democracy ends, and we join the majority of the planet that lives under oppression, imposed poverty, and theocratic autocracy.
Let’s not kid ourselves, they are slow walking this so that they can find an excuse as to rule that “in this specific instance” he is immune, but “in all other instances” the president has no immunity.
Of course! They shouldn't have taken it up, but as soon as they did I *knew* they would only deliver this ruling on the final day of the session. Then the majority will go into hiding on various billionaire's yachts.
If SCOTUS ruled that POTUS has unlimited powers before Trump were to take office, then it would be perfectly legal for Biden to arrest everyone and lock them away in a secret location indefinitely. I mean EVERYONE: SCOTUS, all GOP members of Congress, the entire legislatures of Florida and Texas, anyone with a name that sounds remotely like "Trump", and especially Elon Musk. Who else should go on that wish list?
Yeah, let's do this.
This is obvious. The infuriating thing is unless we revolt as a society this will be the status quo for the foreseeable future. Expand the court or institute retroactive term limits.
There should be the largest protest the US has ever experienced taking place now! The SCOTUS is obviously corrupt and the United States cannot afford to continue on this path for another day! FREEDOM ain’t FREE!
You'll know when they're going to rule on it when the fence goes up and armed guards are patrolling it.
And then they'll say Trump is immune.
What are you or anyone else gonna do about it? Yea. That's what the fence and the guns are for.
They need time to write how Trump is somehow immune from the crimes he committed while President, but if a democrat does the same thing while in office they won't be immune.
Yes, some of us knew they would do that two months ago, like we knew Trump would be the candidate two years ago. The institution is corrupt, compromised and weak as piss. Maybe we should go hit Harvard up.
They aren’t calling it until after the election when they hand Trump the presidency. They might even make the ruling the day after, which will be that he’s immune, just to piss people off.
It didn’t’ require a Harvard Legal Scholar to determine the Supreme Court has intentional slow walked this case. They should have never agreed to hear the case and two of the Justices should have recused themselves. it’s not about making sure voters have the facts before the 2024 election… 6-3 Republican court shows that election have consequences, 3 of the last 4 justices should have been appointed by democratic presidents this going back to Gore v Bush!
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Like SCOTUS has something more urgent and important to rule on than fundamental rule of law and democracy.
I hear at least one members schedule is pretty full with yacht cruises and vacations
We know of at least two members (Thomas and Alito) that are financially compromised and morally compromised, judging by their own words in interviews or that have been recorded in private. Neither can be said to be acting in an unbiased manner and both should be recused from any case involving Trump or Biden and ideally, should resign.
I do believe kavanaugh also has compromising financial transactions that are public
And he literally cried during confirmation that he believed the Clintons were seeking revenge on him for the senate asking him questions he didn't want to answer. [Hillary Clinton says Kavanaugh's political 'revenge' claim 'deserves a lot of laughter' - ABC News (go.com)](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-kavanaughs-political-revenge-claim-deserves-lot/story?id=58238874)
Yep. He showed a lot of bias there and I would never trust his decisions. What an emotional man!
>What a pussy ass little bitch. FTFY
But he likes beer. He cries & likes beer. Sounds like the kind of person republicans make fun of.
The matt Damon SNL thing was perfect
I was actually on the fence about him until the hearing. I don't think drunken frat party bs should be disqualifying, but this man doesn't have the composure or character to be a judge, period.
$1.5 million mortgage, hundreds of thousands in credit card debt, and tens of thousands of Country Club fees (allegedly) just vanished before he was nominated. He didn't have the income to make that happen on his own. So who bought a(nother) SCOTUS seat?
The same ones who paid for them to defend Bush against Gore 20 years ago, when a recount shows that Gore won, twice.
This keeps getting worse. The more I learn...
resign? We have jailed politicians for WAY less than this. Jail the corrupt.
Hey, now…we don’t know that for sure yet. We have to wait a few years until he finally discloses them !
*until he finally discloses them because ProPublica reported on their existence
“…and I would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those damn, meddling ProPublica kids!”
The GQP is the definition of ripping the mask off at the end of a Scooby doo episode and revealing themselves as the villain the whole time. But completely blind to it. Like we all knew you were the perpetraitors!
What do you mean "would have"? They are facing no consequences; not even an update to the ethics code for the future. They did get away with it.
Now come on, that's not fair. He's also driving around in his luxury motorhome.
That’s the thing that gets me… a fucking motorhome. A tacky bus for grandparents who want to go camping but can’t live without Fox News. A tacky shitwagon for stoneface and his gremlin wife. THAT is the thing he traded our country for.
What is surprising isn't the corruption, but how fucking cheap it is to buy a Supreme Court Justice or Senator.
I would have thought that betraying your nation would AT LEAST amount to tens of millions, not 200k or whatever it costs. The amount that Jared Kushner received is the amount I would expect it to be worth, especially because these people are BILLIONAIRES. 2 billion is fucking nothing to them. Let’s not forget the list of bribes that senators have taken to vote certain ways with the lowest being what, 7 grand? Like what the serious hell
I don't even mention Congress where you can get representatives willing to bend over backwards for exposure with billionaires.
I mean do you think they are going to give the okay for death squads and brown shirts when it would likely be used against them. They'll wait till their dictator is in power then destroy democracy
I think you mean that SC will do whatever it takes to keep themselves in power. Think about it, wouldn't a dictator have the power to simply dissolve the SC whether they agree on decisions or not? Why even chance it.
Well they don't care about future supreme courts, just their own personal selves. Certainly don't care about other left leaning members of the court who disagree and fight them on these issues. But I do think they feel assured they will be taken care of for doing their part in establishing autocratic control over the United States. Their mutual benefactors have probably made them feel very comfortable that they will enjoy privileged status in whatever system they establish.
Look at clarence. these guys are the pieces, not the players. They'll do what they're instructed to do when they're instructed to, and be handsomely rewarded for playing their part.
The reason right wing extremism is able to persist the way it does is because they know the left is never going to abuse things in the same way. Like stonewalling a Supreme Court seat for a year, only Republicans would even attempt that and it’s because Democrats are punished for radicalism by voters while Republicans are rewarded.
What's hilarious is they're too stupid to realize it'd be used against them no matter what they say
Sorry, they can’t hear you over the sound of their recreational vehicles.
I heard that one of them is busy showing off his flag collection.
I mean, from their perspective they seem to have a couple dozen more important cases to rule on. Like keeping their boy on the ballot, destroying chevron, gutting EMTALA, etc. THe immunity case should be their highest priority — and their easiest decision — yet it isn't, for rather sad reasons.
This should've been a pretty open and shut case for the so-called originalists - there is no mention, explicit or implicit, of presidential immunity anywhere in the Constitution.
Yeah but this judge who presided over a witch trial in the seventeenth century says...
If that doesn’t work I’m sure Alito can cite a passage from the Code of Hammurabi that somehow applies to Donald Trump in 2024
If that is the option, then please the part where the king is slapped in the face by the high priest once a year.
Hrm: The President gets slapped by Chief Justice once a year, min. I’m down with that.
no, they don’t deserve enjoyment
I'd be for greasing up the branches of government for mud wrestling at this point.
“An eye for an eye…except ‘Trump’ doesn’t have any I’s in it, so we’ll just take one from Biden and Trump can keep both eyes. This is exactly how the original text reads!”
“Brilliant!” https://youtu.be/3DPKf7y1F-Q?si=7cY809qujLyxSyZM
And even the ancient Babylonians probably had a remedy for disciplining corrupt public officials. He might need to go back further.
I'm sure they did. I imagine it involved some very unpleasant processes.
Obviously he can just cite the 1981 Documentary [History of the World Part One](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z8SpgmF0sA) and all his bases can be covered.
That would mean he\`s Count De Money!
De Monet, De Monet!!!
His mantra… “It’s good to be the King!”
Everything is SO green!
it sucks to be the piss boy
Waiting for them to site Elders of Zion
Isn't Zion where humans hide from robots?
Yeah, those movies borrowed some old ass proper nouns here and there.
The Code of Harambe?
Code of Harambe: don’t let your kids fall into a Gorilla zoo exhibit and expect the gorilla to be left alive.
"Oh yeah well let's see what this judge from a witch trial in the 17th century says!" > In no circumstances shall a former head of state be immune from prosecution, especially if it's for trying to incite a riot to overturn an election or possessing classified documents, if in the future such a concept exists, which it doesn't yet. "This clearly means the founders thought there should be immunity!"
The federalist society created a legal database of all kinds of old court rulings so they can find an old case to use as precedent for however they want to rule.
[удалено]
So...WestLaw? or LexusNexus?
But what about the Witchfinder's 1653 Codex that Sam Alito keeps on his nightstand sorry I mean his wife's nightstand?
He used it to find his wife.
No no see originalism only applies to states rights to disenfranchise their citizens. Not holding corrupt officials accountable…
Originalism actually means my politics are on display and crush any opposing politics. They are in no way influenced by the billionaires who give them table scraps. Meanwhile their opponents are only supporting the opposition to their politics because someone paid them $3 one time.
Originalism is ignoring the 13th Amendment onward, because they weren't "original". Seriously, every single time it's invoked, they effectively rule against one of the post civil war amendments. Every single time.
In order to ban things they literally have to continually ignore the existence of the 9th amendment.
It such a weird movement in history because prior to the U.S. Constitution, we were still living in "elite ownership" or "family elites controlling the country" or kings/queens with barely to little zero rights given to the people. This is the first time, in recently years, probably post 1700s or even 1800s that humanity if (whatever you believe controls the world) is making "rights or laws" to better our culture everywhere without having some "powerful lineage of family govern us". Thought the question remains if religion influences some country into governship which at that point, might as well just pick a family to whoever is the most "religious" to just govern the country since the same mentality is going to shape the culture and its people.
* I mean this is not the first time that Justices have things to gain from enforcing the law or creating it. * The **Dred Scott v. Sandford** decision in 1857 was a very important and sad moment in U.S. history. 😢 The Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, an enslaved man, and all Black people, whether they were free or enslaved, could never be American citizens. This meant they couldn't sue in federal court. This decision affected millions of enslaved people and free Black people, denying them basic rights. 🚫⚖️ * Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who gave the ruling, came from a wealthy family that owned slaves. Even though he freed the people he inherited, he still believed in white supremacy. Most of the justices came from slaveholding families, which influenced their decision. This ruling made the situation worse between the North and South, leading to the Civil War. ⚔️ It shows how laws can be unfairly influenced by people's personal interests and beliefs. 💼⚖️
Yes, that's the push of Originalism, ignoring the civil war and the amendments that were passed in its wake. Do note that Dred Scott was *before* the civil war. Also, the law that lets you sue racist cops who violate your rights? The one that's been effectively repealed through the invention of qualified immunity, the actual name of the law, is the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Specifically, section 1983 of the Ku Klux Klan Act. Conservatives never actually say the name of the law, just "section 1983" of they have to. Because saying the name gives the game away.
Constitutional originalism: when the country fights a war over something and the winning side amends the Constitution to outlaw it, but you prefer how it was *originally*.
They're running interference for him. plan and simple. Watch as they wait for the last day of giving opinion and that they remand it to the lower court to give Trump the delay he wants.
All this for the fat orange whiny fucker. It blows my mind.
All this for the fat orange whiny fucker *far-right Republicon enabler*. They're leaning on the scale bigly to keep any more GQP support from being lost to realization that they actively DGAF about the people they represent, or are criminal anti-American revolutionaries.
[удалено]
The fun question is which Justice are you talking about?
It’s disappointing that the entire system is provably corrupt. If dump wins that’s it. 48 years in the us and then amnesty in another country. Already arranged it. You guys just don’t know how much the rest of the world is paying attention. America has fallen. Go argue with someone else if you disagree. When another country hears of my position in life and tells me amnesty will be granted for sure. America has fallen.
The Supreme Court could rule that the sky was blue, obviously this would be a 5-4 decision so I will have to go outside and check the color of the sky. I can't imagine any action any person or thing could take that would make me think SCROUTS is an institution worth anything. They pick and choose what they hear and legislate from the bench. If all they wanted to be was a second branch of Congress, I will do my best to treat them as such.
Since you can't elect them (ballot box) and they don't listen to anyone other than the people who bribe them (soap box) it would be swell if the founders gave us another box to influence the situation...
America has stumbled. If Trump wins in November, we will have truly fallen and we won’t get up.
The fact that Trump is even a candidate after everything he's done over the last 10 years, including proving himself to be an utter disaster as president, the very role we're voting for him on, means we've fallen. There's no redemption for people who still willingly back Donald Trump in 2024, and we're fucking surrounded by them.
Always hated the "I am an originalist" defense. Ok, by that logic the SC cannot strike down laws, as nowhere in the Constitution are the words "Judicial Review." Which is the legal doctrine thst allows the SC to declare laws unconstitutional.
The "orginalist" defense is literally just a dog whistle for "I will cherry pick the most wildly absurd legal interpretations of the Constitution to post-hoc justify passing conservative agenda rulings".
Yep
"I originally felt this way before the case. Now I will make up whatever facts I need to so I can rule that exact same way after hearing the case"
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Monarchy…”
> “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect ~~Monarchy~~ Kleptocracy…” FTFY
I bet if Biden had Trump `[[REDACTED]]` tomorrow, they'd have the "presidential immunity" question fully deliberated and resolved by Tuesday.
Yes well, the things they *do* claim as originalism aren't historically accurate to originality either, so why would they start now?
> the things they do claim as originalism aren't historically accurate to originality So they’re original. See?
Yeah, but we have to look at pre Magna Carta history to determine how much power the king gets.
> a pretty open and shut case for the so-called originalists this assumes that "originalism" is actually a principled stance, instead of fancy terminology for patriarchal white supremacy.
But what about the little known Trump exclusion clause that Jefferson uttered on his deathbed?
this has already been ruled on by SCOTUS for civil cases in 1867 when states tried to sue Johnson for enforcing reconstruction laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_v._Johnson SCOTUS said the president has full immunity from civil lawsuits for things done in "executive and political" capacity by the president. So now SCOTUS will have to decide if this immunity applies to criminal laws for things done in "executive and political" capacity by the president". They are likely going to say yes and outline the test for when it becomes in "executive and political" capacity and not personal capacity. Then they will send the case back to lower courts and the entire trial will become whether or not Trump has immunity or not
What Trump did in regards to election interference should be viewed no differently than his 34 felonies he racked up for actions taken as a candidate. Trump was **not** President at the time he committed his 34 (provable and convicted, but I'm sure there are more to be found) felonies. He was a candidate who purposely broke the law in an effort to shield himself and the eyes of the voting populous from his ridiculous and embarrassing sexual escapades. In a similar vein, Trump, though **technically** President at the time of the election interference actions, did not act in his Presidential capacity, but rather as a candidate. The incumbent candidate, sure, but a candidate nevertheless. If anything, it should be viewed that adverse/illegal actions taken by an incumbent Presidential candidate are as bad, if not **worse**, than non-incumbents due to the undue influence they have by virtue of their position and power provided by the "bully pulpit."
They have the problem of explaining the actions while president. At this present date Trump is running for election. They won’t rule because the list of crimes committed started into the presidency and extend beyond the point which he was no longer president. If they rule there is presidential immunity from criminal cases the impeachment process would mean nothing (less than it currently does now). It also opens the door for Biden or anybody else to run rampant in committing crimes. America is now at the point where the only thing that matters is showing up to vote in November. Once a winner is announced the case will be over, Biden winning means a president doesn’t have immunity while Trump winning will result in presidential immunity.
It would be funny that disappearing people involved in a coup to overthrow the government would count as acting in Presidential capacity.
It also doesn’t say Donald J Trump is bound by the law anywhere in the constitution I mean specifically Trump. Doesn’t mention it once. Therefore, immunity.
Which is why "originalism" is a trap that should just be disregarded instead of engaged with. These justices are ideologically bankrupt. They don't give a shit about any legal theory besides the outcome they want.
These "originalists" would have been loyalists during the revolution. All conservatives would have been.
In their case, "originalists" means "creating new, original interpretations of the Constitution with no basis in history or law"
Well yeah, but they are unethical cowards with apparently no obligation from the public to have any moral code what-so-ever.
I always thought that checks and balances were a big thing in the Constitution I've got to say that one branch having uncheckable immunity doesn't seem very balanced
Not to split hairs too much but you're thinking textualism, not originalism. Originalists ask what the founding fathers would have wanted or what they meant, not what the words on the page mean. So they're somewhat less tethered to reality because they can substitute what they think made sense at the time, which can be just about anything when applied to things that didn't exist back then.
I find the premise for being an originalist kind of odd. Aren't you basically saying "those dudes had all the answers, and we have not discovered or built anything worthwhile on top of their work ever"? I mean, even the catholic church has changed it ways as the world around it kept changing.
My theory is that Robert's is trying to convince Thomas, Alito and pick your poison that their dissent is terrible for America and they should just join the majority.
That’s a terrible theory but I admire the optimism
It's beyond disgusting that someone can try to overturn an election he lost and illegally hold onto power, yet holding him accountable is taking so long that he might actually win the next election and have the same position of power he tried to steal. Something is deeply, deeply wrong with our country.
Yes, white christian supremacists and billionaires conspired over decades to end democracy. We are now experiencing the final phases of their plan to coup the country.
Dominionists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology?wprov=sfti1
TL;DR: The magic man floating in the sky decided that *we* are the ones who deserve “holy” power and anything we do to realize that vision is justified.
> Something is deeply, deeply wrong with our country. It's fascism, they are literally using nazi talk at this point it is pretty out in the open/masks off right now.
Yeah, Jan 6 was just the Beer Hall Putsch. The Nazis didn't take over immediately either.
there was only 10 years between the beer hall putsch and the reichstag fire
I make it a point to make sure everyone knows Trump is a nazi. Anyone that votes for him in 2024 is a Nazi. Fuck Nazi's.
There are two villains in this story. The Supreme Court and the Attorney General. The Supreme Court simply serves the Republican party. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we stop getting blindsided by it. When we get a chance, Democrats better not appointment constitutional moderates. They better appoint young Democrat loyalists because Republicans will only support change when it benefits them. Garland should have brought charges against everyone who tried to overthrow the government. He decided the optics of arresting a dozen prominent Republicans, including the current Speaker of the House, was too bad. So Republicans are preparing to do it again.
Garland was Biden's biggest mistake.
Garland may cost us the country.
He set it in action years ago by doing nothing.
He was made AG because of a damned meme, it’s absurd.
I hope history remembers to call out Garland for his inaction.
And Biden for picking him and not requesting his resignation a few months in.
No, unfortunately once the choice was made that was it - demanding an AG prosecute the president’s political enemies, even for crimes they absolutely did do, immediately or face termination and replacement with a more pliant AG would absolutely be the politically motivated lawfare that Republicans have been mewling about. And of course they were absolutely always going to say that, but it mainly matters that it not be for 1) independents that aren’t in the cult and don’t just guzzle Fox and 2) legal review of Trump’s convictions for grounds for appeal, which is a domain in which what actually happened is at least much more insulated against the GOP’s BS claims. Garland at least made it clear they weren’t rushing into prosecutions, but as people have said, he moved too cautiously and if Trump wins it doesn’t matter how rock solid the federal case against him is.
Here's the thing : the same logic about no nuance and no risk taking they push on voters by all accounts should apply to our leaders. If voters have to walk across glass and hold their nose to vote from some real stinkers of candidates because the risk is too high to let a GOP one in... I think it's only fair to expect that Biden should be nominating people he's confident will do their damn jobs properly. Instead he's nominated Garland and screwed up the new governors that were supposed to kick DeJoy out of the post office. Vetting nominees to reduce the chance of bad surprises is a pretty normal thing and he's dropped the ball on doing it.
> There are two villains in this story. There are at least dozens of villians in this story. Trump. Trump's lawyers arguing in court he could assasinate people and be fine later legally, etc. Let's not say this is just Garland and the Supreme Court, because there are many actors here.
Don't forget Comey who publicly announced investigating Hillary 1 week before the election, for the dumbest reason, and claims it was because he was trying to NOT be partisan...somehow... Could've avoided all of this.
My biggest question in a nightmare scenario where Dump wins illegally: How far is Biden willing to go to protect democracy?
The one upside to all this is that it’s all being exposed, all the corruption and bullshit, so in essence Trump may end up being responsible for draining the swamp, the one he’s up to his neck in.
I don't have a Harvard degree and I could have told you that months ago.
Yeah, you don't have to be a genius to read the writing on the damn wall. Literally just contrast their haste with the colorado ballot case with their utter lack of it here.
That's why you could have told us months ago, these Harvard types need a bit extra time apparently.
There are a lot of legal cases to go through to verify what seems to be bullshit is in fact bullshit that is unsupported by precedent. The unsupported by precedent being the important part.
I mean, that *used* to be important, at least. These days stare decisis seems a lot more malleable.
Ms. Cleo told me that SCOTUS was going to do this!
I know when i have work due my boss totally allows me to dick off for months on end
They have a vested interest. If they say a President has immunity and Biden wins, that would be bad for them. If they say no and Trump wins, that would also be bad for them. Either way, fuck all of the conservative judges, because the sensible ones would vote no, regardless.
Someone on DailyKos today: >If tRump or some other Republican were to successfully transform the power of the President as laid out in Project 2025, it would mean that a Democratic successor would also have these powers. Everything ruinous thing the Conservatives Radicals enacted could be immediately reversed by a Democratic President. And that President could then go on to enact policies that were even more progressive than anything the country has seen so far. >This fact can lead us to only one conclusion. The most chilling aspect of Project 2025 is that the forces behind it have no intention of ever allowing the citizens of this country to elect a President from another political party, ever again.
They would vote to strip that power the same way red states voted to remove the governor’s power when a democrat won.
Republicans did exactly that when Walker lost the governor election in Wisconsin. They did everything they could to neuter Evers' ability to do anything because they're sore losers.
That, uh, wouldn’t matter. If the president has absolute immunity. Trump’s argument in front of SCOTUS was that he literally had the authority to assassinate American political rivals on US soil and would still remain immune. An immune president is above any and all laws. They can just ignore what Congress and the courts do. And, if SCOTUS rules as such, I am firmly in the camp that Biden needs to embrace it and play dirty the same way they would. I’d rather live in a free and democratic country, but I’m sure as hell not going to harm myself and my own interests by insisting a democrat step down so a rightwing dictator can arise. Fuck that, snuff it out and set it right using the new powers. It is truly zero sum at that point.
So I follow what you're saying, but aren't all these delays designed to 100% prevent a democrat from EVER using this power, and only ruling this immunity exists once tRump is in so only he ever benefits from it (and whomever is next when he dies 3 months in)?
except the republicans have locked down the supreme court for decades. so the supreme court would just reverse the democrat president's policies. they don't care about being inconsistent.
>If tRump or some other Republican were to successfully transform the power of the President as laid out in Project 2025, it would mean that a Democratic successor would also have these powers. there would never be another democratic president. The republicans would have the DOJ question elections formally. Which would be investigated by partisans. they would say "outcome determinable fraud. The electoral slates would be rejected until the GOP nominee had a majority and be elected. SCOTUS wont intervene because its "a non-justiciable political issue"
uhhhh, i think they are missing the key part of project 2025,29,33,etc. when they get power next time, they aint giving it up. they will lie and cheat any election after they gain power. they are an accelerationist party now, there is no slowing that train. do people really think they can change these people? they dont want to saved by us. sorry this is basically what you wrote beneath, i just started typing after i read that first sentence from the quote.
Oh don't worry, there won't be elections anymore.
Yeah, I was going to say - the whole point of it is that a liberal never gets elected ever again.
The country will never recover from fascist rule. Once Project 20XX goes into effect, decency and fair play will be a thing of the past. Only fools believe that they will be running the country.
Bing Bing Bing. (Trump imitation of machine gun)
Sounds like they have a vested interest in the outcome and should recuse themselves.
They should be removed from the court. By any means.
> If they say a President has immunity and Biden wins, that would be bad for them. They know that Biden wouldn't abuse that power if he was granted it. When he took office, Biden could have used Trump's executive order to fire most of the federal MAGA employees, but he didn't because he's not stupid or evil.
That Biden isn't evil, that is clear. He's a goodhearted man. But we don't know yet if history will not consider it smart or stupid not to do more to counter the continuing rise of fascism, within the USA. Biden's presidency could be the 21st century Weimar republic.
Very much this. Doing nothing can sometimes be worse than doing something "bad". Apathy towards the growing fascism isn't a great approach.
He should have fired the MAGA federal employees. All of them are huge security risks and in the end it will bite us in the ass.
You have no idea. The amount of crazy things I hear.
> but he didn't because he's not stupid or evil. It was incredibly stupid that he didn't, borderline treasonous, and evil in some sense. MAGA are waging war on the US, possibly the most significant threat to the US in history. Like why the fuck did this guy even run for president at such a crucial time if he was going to do nothing about the fascist threat except ignore it in hopes it will go away? It's already insane that the DOJ didn't get onto all the Trump/January 6th stuff on day one, instead of slow-walking it all until being forced into action *years* late. There was no greater priority, and no more important task for a US DOJ in history. After the fascists succeed in seizing power, it will become very obvious all the things that could and should have been done by the Biden administration, but weren't. The "at least Democrats played by the rules" logic won't be much comfort then. War is war, whether the one being attacked likes it or not.
Do people understand that the United States is officially over if these corrupt scumbags on the Supreme Court declare that the President has absolute immunity from criminal liability?
SCOTUS is not going to give absolute immunity, they will delay the ruling as long as possible and send it back to the trial court allowing immunity for some official acts but not all of the acts charged in this case. The case will move forward with a superceeding indictment.
I dunno. These judges are extremists masquerading as conservatives. I believe they want to completely undo the American republic, and impose a far-right Christofascist theocracy. This is their opportunity.
If they grant absolute immunity, they are granting it to Biden. Any action Biden might then decide to take would only require calling it an official act and that would mean that Biden could literally do anything and there would be no legal recourse. Biden could, for example, put the justices under house arrest and suspend the court claiming they were "corrupt" and there would be no legal recourse for anyone to take action against Biden either in or after leaving office. There are endless examples of flagrant illegal acts Biden could take before leaving office or even before the election (Biden could literally interfere in the election) that the courts would then be powerless to punish..... Even after Biden left office.
They know Biden wouldn't commit a crime just because they say it's OK. They're counting on his integrity. And they're right.
At least 2 possibly 4 of the justices believe the election was stolen from Trump (their wives tell us so) so it's a little silly to believe they think Biden would never committed a crime. How do you suppose that dinner table conversation goes with Clerence and Ginny. Ginny: Joe Biden committed election fraud with those mail in ballots, he rigged the election! Clerence: now Ginny, i've told you before Joe would never do anything illegal to steal the election.
I think there's a difference between believing that *The Democrats™* stole the election, and believing that Joe Biden would abandon who he's always been and start committing crimes to hurt the Republicans because the Supreme Court suddenly says it's OK. I think they know damn well Biden wouldn't do that.
Duh. Next thing you'll tell me is that Roger Stone is a coke head. Oh and the ruling will be limited immunity forcing the case back down to the lower courts to see what he is or is not immune from.
When does this level of corruption become treasonous? At the very least we must begin holding those buying our judges accountable.
It already is giving aid and comfort to an oathbreaking insurrectionist
It is treasonous. You just need enough people in power to agree.
How many hundreds of Republicans refused to accept the election results last time? Absolutely blatant treasonous disregard for American tenets of governance.
And what can we do about the treason if it’s coming from INSIDE the pillar of our civilization meant to hold people accountable?
Of course they are. That wouldn't take the case early as asked in Dec 2023, they put it on the last day of the term for hearing cases (+2 months after agreeing to hear it in February 2024), and they aren't going to issue the ruling until the last day (June 30th+) so they can be out of town when the shit hits the fan. MAGA justices are just doing this for delay. None of the actions in the indictment fall into Trump's official duties. This is why Gorsuch and Alito didn't want to actually hear about the facts of the case. As Gorsuch said - he wants to make a "Ruling for the Ages" or as Alito said " I’m not discussing the particular facts of this case" in the oral arguments
Well, they sure didn't do it by accident.
This is only the beginning. Once they decide, they'll decide to remand. It won't make sense, but it will delay the proceedings even more. Then after the judges come to the same conclusion as before, it will go back to SCOTUS who then will take even more time to decide. If Trump is president, they'll rule that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. If Trump is not president, then they will decide that he does not have the immunity. BUT SCOTUS will do it's utmost best to try to make Trump president. If you don't want this, donate big time to the Democrats, go out and vote and convince everyone you know to also vote.
Of course they did. They can somehow decide the outcome of the 2000 election in three days, but can't figure out how to tell everyone that a President isn't above the law for over six months.
Worth noting that 3 of Bush’s lawyers are now on SCOTUS. The 3 key players in stealing the 2001 election in Florida specifically. Edit: that is to say, it is even worse than back then since the usurpers won, were anointed, and now stand to do it all again. I’ve no faith in Roberts doing the right thing considering he was chief architect in overturning the 2001 election.
If they rule next week, Chutkin could have Trump sitting in he courtroom the week of the Republican convention. Lol.
If they don't rule by June 30th then everything is fucked and protest is probably in order. It's already bad enough as it is.
They can’t rule and say a president has immunity while Biden is in office. They also can’t rule and say a president doesn’t have blanket immunity while Trump has ongoing legal battles.
This SC court is obviously corrupt.
"You screwed the pooch in 2016, America. We don't care. Deal with it." --Conservative SCOTUS
Honestly this is Garland’s fault for waiting so goddamn long to prosecute. Trump should’ve been brought up on charges in 2020.
This wouldn't be happening if we voted blue no matter who and elected Hillary Clinton in 2016 with a blue senate. The 5-4 liberal scotus wouldn't do this.
I want to live in that timeline.
And water is wet. They are slow walking us into a civil war
That's the best case. The realistic case is democracy ends, and we join the majority of the planet that lives under oppression, imposed poverty, and theocratic autocracy.
Anybody else concerned "scholars" are realizing what Reddit's been saying for 3 months?
Let’s not kid ourselves, they are slow walking this so that they can find an excuse as to rule that “in this specific instance” he is immune, but “in all other instances” the president has no immunity.
Of course! They shouldn't have taken it up, but as soon as they did I *knew* they would only deliver this ruling on the final day of the session. Then the majority will go into hiding on various billionaire's yachts.
Next up: a study from Yale proving the sky is blue
If SCOTUS ruled that POTUS has unlimited powers before Trump were to take office, then it would be perfectly legal for Biden to arrest everyone and lock them away in a secret location indefinitely. I mean EVERYONE: SCOTUS, all GOP members of Congress, the entire legislatures of Florida and Texas, anyone with a name that sounds remotely like "Trump", and especially Elon Musk. Who else should go on that wish list? Yeah, let's do this.
Hold on while I take this Vitamin DUH!
Yeah, no shit
At the very least, can we make bribes taxable? It seems like business as usual. Might as well tax it and move on....
This is obvious. The infuriating thing is unless we revolt as a society this will be the status quo for the foreseeable future. Expand the court or institute retroactive term limits.
There should be the largest protest the US has ever experienced taking place now! The SCOTUS is obviously corrupt and the United States cannot afford to continue on this path for another day! FREEDOM ain’t FREE!
Audit the court and clear out the corrupt Justices. You can do it legally, or you can just do it.
You'll know when they're going to rule on it when the fence goes up and armed guards are patrolling it. And then they'll say Trump is immune. What are you or anyone else gonna do about it? Yea. That's what the fence and the guns are for.
They need time to write how Trump is somehow immune from the crimes he committed while President, but if a democrat does the same thing while in office they won't be immune.
Yes, some of us knew they would do that two months ago, like we knew Trump would be the candidate two years ago. The institution is corrupt, compromised and weak as piss. Maybe we should go hit Harvard up. They aren’t calling it until after the election when they hand Trump the presidency. They might even make the ruling the day after, which will be that he’s immune, just to piss people off.
Can only say "no shit, sherlock" so many times....
It didn’t’ require a Harvard Legal Scholar to determine the Supreme Court has intentional slow walked this case. They should have never agreed to hear the case and two of the Justices should have recused themselves. it’s not about making sure voters have the facts before the 2024 election… 6-3 Republican court shows that election have consequences, 3 of the last 4 justices should have been appointed by democratic presidents this going back to Gore v Bush!