SCOTUS watch thread: Trump immunity, Capitol riot defendants, abortion, censorship

[coati]

However, there is no chance he will take advantage of the opportunity. And Trumpers, who know he is decent and that their guy is rotten, know this and are counting on it.

No, immunity only applies to Republican Presidents. Wake up. SCOTUS has canceled democracy.

 

[coati]

With this SCOTUS immunity crap can any president have a political adversary murdered and then pardon the assassin? I

Once again, no.

With a completely GOP-dominated SCOTUS, that degree of immunity will only be applied to Republican Presidents.

Democracy and equal application of the law has been destroyed for as long as rIght-wing political hacks hold the majority in SCOTUS.

 

[ll74]

Once again, no.

With a completely GOP-dominated SCOTUS, that degree of immunity will only be applied to Republican Presidents.

Sorry, but that's not how it works.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Sorry, but that's not how it works.

The court decides case-by-case what is an official act, so that could be exactly how it works in practice. We won’t know until it’s tested.

 

[ll74]

The court decides case-by-case what is an official act, so that could be exactly how it works in practice. We won’t know until it’s tested.

He wasn't talking about the lower courts. He is saying that SCOTUS will somehow make it this way.

The number of people who are out of their mind in response to this ruling is high.

 

[MajorRewrite]

He wasn't talking about the lower courts. He is saying that SCOTUS will somehow make it this way.

The number of people who are out of their mind in response to this ruling is high.

We won’t know how it works until it’s tested.

 

[ll74]

We won’t know how it works until it’s tested.

It doesn't work as he is suggesting, no matter how it's tested.

 

[adrina]

Scotus has been failing a lot of tests recently.

 

[MajorRewrite]

It doesn't work as he is suggesting, no matter how it's tested.

Do you have a crystal ball for looking into the future? Who’s going to win the Euros?

Decisions about what is an official act will be made on a case-by-case basis. We won’t know how those cases shake out until rulings are made.

 

[ll74]

Do you have a crystal ball for looking into the future? Who’s going to win the Euros?

It's simply not how the court works. You can debate outcomes changing over time, but the pretzel twisting that would even cause anywhere close to that outcome ignores basic logic and understanding of the courts.

Decisions about what is an official act will be made on a case-by-case basis. We won’t know how those cases shake out until rulings are made.

A case by case basis starting in the lower courts. It does not nor will it go directly to SCOTUS and the suggestion that every case would be directly partisan is ludicrous and histrionic on its face.

 

[ll74]

Scotus has been failing a lot of tests recently.

It won't be tested there.

 

[coati]

Sorry, but that's not how it works.

I continue to be amazed at the number of Democrats who cling to their Pollyanna views about institutional integrity in the context of right-wingers playing hardball politics in our judicial system.

Wake up, for fucks sake...

 

[MajorRewrite]

A case by case basis starting in the lower courts. It does not nor will it go directly to SCOTUS and the suggestion that every case would be directly partisan is ludicrous and histrionic on its face.

Bah. Any decision against the President in a lower court would quickly be appealed to the Supreme Doofus Court.

 

[Lazaran]

We won’t know how it works until it’s tested.

I mentioned in another post that Judge Chutkan will be putting things to the test in fairly short order. Judge Chutkan has been tasked with divining what is and isn’t an official presidential act: Once she has decided, her ruling will undoubtably be challenged by the corrupt orange traitor, and we will all get a first glimpse of how things are going to work moving forward.

If SCOTUS overrules her decision, or if she feels so constricted and constrained by the new SCOTUS immunity ruling that she ultimately dismisses the case, then justice is dead, along with the rule of law.

I suspect this ball will be back in the SCOTUS’s court in a little while, but not before the election, at which point EVERYTHING could. be made moot by dictator Drumpf and the ensuing war of resistance.

 

[ll74]

Bah. Any decision against the President in a lower court would quickly be appealed to the Supreme Doofus Court.

This is simply incorrect.

You're just proving my point. Rather than taking the time to understand things, people are just overreacting. There are aspects of this immunity case I truly dislike....but these suggestions are laughable and not serious.

 

[ll74]

I mentioned in another post that Judge Chutkan will be putting things to the test in fairly short order. Judge Chutkan has been tasked with divining what is and isn’t an official presidential act: Once she has decided, her ruling will undoubtably be challenged by the corrupt orange traitor, and we will all get a first glimpse of how things are going to work moving forward.

If SCOTUS overrules her decision, or if she feels so constricted and constrained by the new SCOTUS immunity ruling that she ultimately dismisses the case, then justice is dead, along with the rule of law.

I suspect this ball will be back in the SCOTUS’s court in a little while, but not before the election, at which point EVERYTHING could. be made moot by dictator Drumpf and the ensuing war of resistance.

Marchan will be the first. And he will deny Trump a new trial.

 

[adrina]

This is simply incorrect.

You're just proving my point. Rather than taking the time to understand things, people are just overreacting. There are aspects of this immunity case I truly dislike....but these suggestions are laughable and not serious.

Not necessarily. The reality is that Trump can petition SCOTUS to bypass all of the lower court shenanigans. They can file that motion. And it is entirely up to the court if they will hear/grant it. Do you trust this court to do the right thing by the law?

 

[ll74]

Not necessarily. The reality is that Trump can petition SCOTUS to bypass all of the lower court shenanigans. They can file that motion. And it is entirely up to the court if they will hear/grant it. Do you trust this court to do the right thing by the law?

They can, but he's done that before and they've said no.

I do trust the court..more than most. I think these extraneous rulings by SCOTUS are not what I like nor trust. That being said, I think the lower courts will do their jobs and fill in the gaps.

 

[adrina]

They can, but he's done that before and they've said no.

I do trust the court..more than most. I think these extraneous rulings by SCOTUS are not what I like nor trust. That being said, I think the lower courts will do their jobs and fill in the gaps.

You have more faith than is warranted.

I keep remembering being told over and over and over again in 2016 that SCOTUS was not going to be compromised, that they were justices and would rule in accordance with their testimony under oath during their confirmation hearings. I've had enough smoke blown up my skirt. Honestly you are being naive.

 

[ll74]

You have more faith than is warranted.

I have restrained reaction.

I keep remembering being told over and over and over again in 2016 that SCOTUS was not going to be compromised, that they were justices and would rule in accordance with their testimony under oath during their confirmation hearings. I've had enough smoke blown up my skirt. Honestly you are being naive.

There's a lot to their testimony that people don't interpret properly. If you have a chance, listen to advisory opinions. If you have, I apologize....it's been an invaluable source of analysis for me.

 

[adrina]

I have restrained reaction.


There's a lot to their testimony that people don't interpret properly. If you have a chance, listen to advisory opinions. If you have, I apologize....it's been an invaluable source of analysis for me.

I have not listened to the advisory opinions, and while I get they may be esoterically valuable, the reality is the plainness of their words is clear to the average American. Even the above average American. The problem is that what they have said demonstrates one of two things - they lied under oath or they chose their words so carefully as to give one impression while meaning another. So it's deception or duplicity. Take your pick. In reality it is both.

Further beyond that, we know each and every one of these problematic justices came out of the Heritage Foundation and were supported by the GOP at large. This was a long term plan they put into motion and it has come to fruition.

One thing is absolutely clear, from this point forward the best we can expect from this court is the appearance of adherence to the law and constitution. The substance on the other hand... see Project 2025.

 

[ll74]

You have more faith than is warranted.

I keep remembering being told over and over and over again in 2016 that SCOTUS was not going to be compromised, that they were justices and would rule in accordance with their testimony under oath during their confirmation hearings. I've had enough smoke blown up my skirt. Honestly you are being naive.

I think I need to rephrase this. I have confidence that we can overcome deficiencies as a people. I'd say right now that Congress is our biggest deficiency that needs to be addressed

 

[ll74]

I have not listened to the advisory opinions, and while I get they may be esoterically valuable, the reality is the plainness of their words is clear to the average American. Even the above average American. The problem is that what they have said demonstrates one of two things - they lied under oath or they chose their words so carefully as to give one impression while meaning another. So it's deception or duplicity. Take your pick. In reality it is both.

Further beyond that, we know each and every one of these problematic justices came out of the Heritage Foundation and were supported by the GOP at large. This was a long term plan they put into motion and it has come to fruition.

One thing is absolutely clear, from this point forward the best we can expect from this court is the appearance of adherence to the law and constitution. The substance on the other hand... see Project 2025.

I think voters need to do more.

 

[adrina]

I think voters need to do more.

Yes they do. The people need to flex their will. I wonder when they will finally figure out that it is cheaper to vote than to move.

 

[ll74]

Yes they do. The people need to flex their will. I wonder when they will finally figure out that it is cheaper to vote than to move.

I also wonder when they'll realize that Congress makes the laws (or used to)