The Official SCOTUS Trump immunity hearings thread

This Trump lawyer sounds like he spent the past few hours screaming at the top of his lungs.

Sotomayor has just crushed Trump's attorney Sauer with her heel. She's a smart woman - and he's no match for her.

Brown-Jackson is finishing off what's left of him - sweeping the remains of his body off the floor.

Also he doesn’t seem very smart.

He's stuttering and stammering when trying to answer questions or make his point - not a good look, at all.

He is floundering around because has no valid basis for his absurd argument.

Uncle Thomas should be ashamed to even be there.

Oh pleas. Clarice has no shame.

Clarence seems much more engaged than usual. Huh.

A coup attempt is an official act meriting immunity?? 🙄

What a waste of time. The J6 trial could have started months ago.

Trump’s lawyer just digging a deeper hole.

A President ordering the miliary to stage a coup... is an official act and qualifies for Presidential immunity. That was the argument just made by Sauer.

Astonishing moment in our history... that is Trump's claim and there's a possibility the Court will let him get away with this.

This argument that you gotta impeach a president first before prosecuting him in criminal court is so fucking ridiculous.

By the questioning of the SC - including Barrett - I don't think they will let Trump get away with this. Sauer is sinking any chances.

Kagan has nailed him.

[quote] This argument that you gotta impeach a president first before prosecuting him in criminal court is so fucking ridiculous.

I’ve read this section of the Constitution a few times without finding that requirement.

[quote] Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Justice Jackson: "Why is the president not required to follow the law in the course of his official duties?"

R13 And both Barrett and Jackson are tearing that argument apart... "lots of people have positions of great responsibility, and can be impeached, charged and convicted criminally, why does the President have exceptional immunity when the Constitution doesn't speak to that..."

Jackson: The President is required to follow the law.

It's interesting to listen to, but in all honesty - why have they decided to waste their time on this ? Is this going to take all day ? It seems like he sunk his boat already - as he can't prove anything.

Let's face it - this could've been an episode of Judge Judy's "Tribunal Justice" on Amazon.

A messy business.

Could Michael Dreeben (atty for Jack Smith) have a more effeminate voice ?

R18 They should have let the circuit court's ruling stand and not heard this. The fact they did decide to hear it is more than a little disturbing. It's very possible that the six Republican-appointed justices will vote to let Trump get away with this. Case in point: Thomas never talks. He's talking a lot this morning.

I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose.

Michael Dreeben, a former deputy Solicitor General, who is arguing on behalf of the government, has a long history at DOJ, and is one of the smartest lawyers around.

I find Sauer's voice unbearable. It's torture to listen to him.

This is purely about delay. They know there is no such thing as absolute immunity for anyone but took the case to delay a trial. Exactly what Trump wanted.

R25 A straight Harvey Fiertstein.

Dreeben sounds like the older woman at work who always sounds like she's fighting post-nasal drip.

Dreeben is good: "there is no such immunity in the Constitution unless the Court creates it today." Don't fuck with our history, SC, no matter who appointed you.

I agree - it's about delay.

However, if they reach a decision today or by the end of this month, and they rule there is no immunity - can the trial go forward this summer ?

R28 My understanding is that a trial could conceivably begin (if the SC rules quickly... though unlikely we'll hear anything before June)... but would not be concluded before the November election.

Yes, R28. It won’t be today, but could be over the next few months up to the end of the term, which will likely be the last week of June. In those circumstances, the trial can go forward this summer. Even if they wait until the end of June, the trial can proceed later in the summer and during the fall. And I believe that is what Smith intends to do.

Shit. Roberts just floated the idea of sending it back to the appeals court.

They will look for any reason to delay.

Barrett and Kavanaugh will decide this... whether it's sent back to Circuit Court or denying the immunity claim now. Hold decision until the end of June, send it back to the appeals court... appeals court rules he has no immunity. Trial might well NOT start until after November.

However, I think Barrett and Kavanaugh could surprise us and rule the right way.

Alito is a piece of shit. And people need to quit trying to pressure Sotomayor to retire. She's doing great.

R34 Ginsberg did great and then died and then a MAGA-appointed justice took her place. The commentary about Sotomayor has nothing to do with her performance.

Ugh. This hearing shows the conservatives not only want to delay the case, they also want to undermine Jack Smith’s case against Trump. In other words they want to give Trump a complete pass.

Clarence Thomas shouldn't even be a justice anymore after his criminal ways. It pisses me off.

Yeah, r35, it's about fear. How everyone was surprised (!) when a very old woman who had been through multiple heath scares died. It's not the same with Sotomayor.

R36 Power corrupts. Absolutely power corrupts absolutely. From the Republican/MAGA-appointed majority we need a profile in courage.

R38 I love Sotomayor. She also travels with a health aide, and there is some speculation she may be on dialysis. If she remains, and Trump is elected, and MAGA would have 7 justices on the court...

Where’s a sharpshooter when you need them?

*** Looking directly at scumbags, Alito and Thomas.

CNN reading the tea leaves: "Supreme Court Case may not resolve Trump immunity once and for all."

This has gone on for a long time. I thought arguments were going to last about an hour?

Huh.

The arguments can go as long as John Roberts allows them to go — within reason. I think they gave each side an hour, which is a very long time in appellate cases. It is generally much shorter than that.

If the President is immune, Biden should just send Trump and all his allies to Gitmo

R36 Do these idiots realize that blanket immunity for a potus pretty much renders their own powers moot? Hell, what would stop Dump from getting pissed off and having several of them killed? This argument is insane beyond belief.

Kavanaugh is talking about abuse of the independent councel. Bitch, you did that to Clinton!

They're going to send it back to the lower court and make it decide which of Trump's acts were official and which were not.

We've heard from Co-Justice Ginni; when does Co-Justice Cla'nce get to pose his questions?

Guess Trump should have just gone ahead and given the Jan. 6 rioters a direct order to lynch Mike Pence

delaying partisan SCOTUS delaying partisan SCOTUS delaying partisan SCOTUS delaying partisan SCOTUS delaying partisan SCOTUS delaying partisan SCOTUS delaying partisan SCOTUS delaying partisan SCOTUS delaying partisan SCOTUS delaying partisan SCOTUS delaying partisan SCOTUS delaying partisan SCOTUS delaying partisan SCOTUS delaying partisan SCOTUS delaying partisan SCOTUS

So i know I'm giving Dump's lawyers more credit than I think they deserve, but I thought of something--they are arguing something very outlandish, that the president is immune to everything. I am thinking their goal is for the SC to send this case back down to the lower courts to define this better, thus delaying it again, and by arguing this position, it helps their cause.

Are you being a wiseass, R53? That has been the common consensus in this thread.

Biden needs to declare himself president through 2028 and declare the upcoming elections null and void. I mean, why not?

r54, no I'm not being a wiseass, I know that that's what Dump wants. I'm asking whether Dump's lawyers are tanking this hearing with their argument--everyone is saying they're doing a terrible job, I'm just asking if they're actually outsmarting everyone wit their tactic.

I am definitely NOT a supporter of Trump! I also was not going to join this thread. But I have questions and maybe many of you smarter folks here can put me on the right path...

Okay...

Didn't President Abraham Lincoln break a few laws in the Constitution that he was never held accountable for? Granted, he was assassinated, but... you follow my question

Abraham Lincoln took controversial actions during the Civil War that some say violated the Constitution:

Suspending habeas corpus

Lincoln unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus in 1863, which is a constitutional right to legal action against unlawful detention. He arrested thousands of political opponents and ignored Chief Justice Roger Taney's ruling that the suspension was unconstitutional.

Suppressing dissent

Lincoln suppressed dissent to the Civil War and restricted civil liberties, including First Amendment press freedoms and other freedoms of expression.

Forcibly resisting secession

Lincoln forcibly resisted secession by invading the Confederacy.

Issuing the Emancipation Proclamation

Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared freedom for slaves in ten Confederate states. Some say the proclamation was invalid because it unconstitutionally deprived slave owners of their property and exerted legislative power rather than executive power.

The frustrating part is that none of this needed to come before the Supreme Court now. They could have waited until after he was convicted and made it part of the appeal. They may well send it back to the District Court for some nonsensical fact-finding exercise that will only further delay the trial. The blatant partisanship is not unexpected, but nevertheless, remains rather breathtaking.

War powers act, r57. During wartime, a President can do shit they normally can’t.

I’m not a lawyer or US historian, but FDR also did similar things with the Japanese internment camps.

In those instances, though, I believe Congress had issued declarations of war.

THANK YOU, R59!

So... we're now comparing a President trying to hold the country together during a Civil War to a President who wanted to divide the country and maybe start a Civil War?

No, R61. But Trump with his nonsense has compared himself to Lincoln, Mandela, and Jesus. Lincoln did what he did for the greater good and not the overthrowing of our government. But, is that a legal and credible excuse/argument? I say "yes" it is. But, the Supremacists might make a claim that what Trump did (and is doing) along with his cabal is for the greater good.

[quote]The frustrating part is that none of this needed to come before the Supreme Court now.

Sure it did. The Supremacists demanded it.

[quote]“This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men. Blacks have shown less capacity for government than any other race of people. No independent government of any form has been successful in their hands. On the contrary, wherever they have been left to their own devices they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism.” "Blacks are not citizens but serfs, totally under the dominion of white people, except white people would not have the capacity to turn them into legal chattel."--PRESIDENT Andrew Johnson

[quote]I’m not a lawyer or US historian, but FDR also did similar things with the Japanese internment camps.

From today's session:

Imprisoning thousands of Americans citizens who were not charged with any crime and holding them captive for several years solely because of their Japanese ancestry does seem like a major crime.

The constitutionality of internnment was upheld by the Supreme Court ( Korematsu vs. U.S.) in 1944 and not overturned until 2018. Theoretically lawful, morally repugnant.

"... when does Co-Justice Cla'nce get to pose his questions"

After Samuel writes them down for him to read.

I want Vaughn Hilliard inside me quite deeply.

I thought Thomas was famous for never posing questions.

It appears likely that at least four justices — Justices Clarence Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch — will give Trump the immunity he seeks (or apply a rule like Kavanaugh’s requirement that criminal statutes don’t apply to the president unless they explicitly say so, which would have virtually the same effect). At one point, Thomas even suggested that the Justice Department’s decision to appoint Smith to investigate Trump was unconstitutional.

Roberts and Barrett, meanwhile, were a little more enigmatic. But both, at the very least, floated sending this case back down to the lower court for more delay.

[quote] or apply a rule like Kavanaugh’s requirement that criminal statutes don’t apply to the president unless they explicitly say so

Absurd. How did they dream up this ridiculous requirement? And what is the basis in the law for it?

The Supreme Court becomes less legitimate by the day.

r69, Until he started protecting his wife

I see Vaughn Hilliard as more of a bottom. Here’s a cute pic with his husband. Who do we think tops/ bottoms/ verse?

Vaughn and his hubby look like 'sides'. Vaughn also looks like he's excellent at giving head.

Thomas started asking questions one day in 2016 after ten years of total silence, and hasn’t shut up since. Perhaps he was happy to let Scalia talk for him while Scalia was alive (Saclia died in 2016).

It’s not making sense to me why Judge Chutkan would have to do further fact finding? Isn’t that the point of the trial, to determine whether he engaged in criminal acts? She already determined he doesn’t get presidential immunity for these actions. More fact finding is not going to change anything.

Donald Trump stole top secret documents and nuclear information that belonged to America (not him), sold some of it and has kept some of it for blackmail or leverage or for more money down the line. That is totally un-fucking-acceptable. If FDR or my dead meemaw had done that, I'd tell the feds to dig them up and throw what was left of them in Gitmo. Donald Trump belongs in Gitmo, too.

This is not a partisan issue. It is national security issue. It is an issue that deals with global nuclear warfare, for the love of God.

If people are being truthful when they say that Trump should be treated like anyone else, then they should accept that cases can take years to litigate and appeal, and not claim there is some kind of special delay happening.

They might order Chutkin to determine whether particular acts were official acts or private acts, if they rule that the distinction is important.. Then those decisions could be appealed before the trial proceeds .

There is a special delay here, r78. Most appeals take place only after a conviction. Entertaining Trump’s immunity argument allows him to delay the trial.

Anyone else aside from Donald Trump would be rotting in jail for violating the parameters of his parole, R78.

R78 Remember when the Colorado case, to disqualify Trump from the ballot, came to the SCOTUS, the conservative justices were livid that timing needed to be telescoped , rushed, so the decision was made BEFORE the Colorado primary.

Trump is never treated like everyone else. That's our national disease.

He is *out on parole*, R78. Please look into what that would entail for anyone other than Donald Trump. Cross reference his behavior.

I believe it was Alito that made the point that it wouldn’t make sense in this case to have a trial and then after the fact determine if there was immunity for the activity is charged with. It should be decided beforehand.

Here's some good news.

They are just making up new rules for Trump. He can appeal a conviction like any other defendant.

Chutkan and the court of appeals already determined these were not official acts.

He’s not out on parole. Parole is for convicted felons. He’s out on bail. That is what happens before trial.

Funny part? He will get away with it. Everything.

The Court can order the trial judge to make new factual determinations in light of whatever standards and instructions they give.

They didn’t make up a new rule. Anyone claiming immunity from prosecution gets to appeal a denial of immunity before trial. However, they are considering making a new rule in finding that he actually has some form of immunity.

And what would that immunity be in this case?

R90 And he DID appeal... to the circuit court which denied the appeal. The SCOTUS could have determined not to hear the case and let the circuit court's decision to deny the appeal stand. SCOTUS threw him a lifeline,,, and continues to delay this appeal, while they fast-forwarded the decision on the Colorado ballot case. No matter when your politics are, it's hard not to see that SCOTUS is doing all it can to help Trump.

True, r92. But they obviously WANTED to hear the case for reasons that are somewhat revealed today. I agree they are acting as partisans. But as in the 14th Amendment case, the liberals are not calling them out, instead playing their own games.

R93 Please explain how "the liberals are playing their own game", and how that in any way is equivalent to a conservative majority of SCOTUS helping a former president escape responsibility for defying the Constitution and trying to overturn an election?

It’s shocking—or I guess it’s not shocking—about the general level of ignorance among Americans about constitutional law. 20% of the posters are looking at 80% of the posters, then asking how stupid are you?

In the 14th A case, none of the liberals stood up for the plain meaning of the Constitution and made up policy reasons to ignore it.

In this case, it seems only KBJ reminded the Court that they are supposed to be deciding thus particular case, not creating a policy that will resolve all potential claims of presidential immunity.

R95 and in what universe does your post help bring light? The internet was such a fucking mistake.

R57 a little bit of Eiki history mixed with a lot of stupidity is not a good look. I see the argument your’e trying to parse here…but then you mess things up with ridiculous historial mistakes. Start over.

R97 that’s not my job—go bitch at your 8th grade civics teacher or your 11th grade government teacher. Or go read Leon Litwack, or Kenneth Stampp, or something educational about the origins of the Constitution, or anything besides the internet.

Now, now, r94. let r93 bothsides herself into a tizzy.

R99 My point: what specifically should this posters, so in error, look at, reconsider? What is the error so common here? Or is "y'all just dumb shit hicks" enough for you?

Elie Mystal@ElieNYC

Heading into the big city. Going to be on the @thereidout at 7:00 and with @abbydphillip and @thelauracoates at 10:00 to discuss why the Supreme Court thinks Trump should get away with crimes.

(Answer: because Trump is running as a Republican)

R101 educate yourself…why are you looking for answers on these thread? That’s MY point.

Elie Mystal@ElieNYC

By way of preview, here’s my recap of today’s arguments for @thenation

The Republican justices, the men at least, are in the tank for Trump.

My question is what, if anything, the American people are going to do about it.

What *can* we do about it?

Calling my disappointment with the liberal Justices “both-siding myself into a tizzy” is pathetic. Is it your view that one must endorse everything a Justice does if she was appointed by a Democrat? If so, you have no business complaining that the conservatives are being partisan.

I'm more National Enquirer than US Constitution, but WTF, the guy screaming FAKE NEWS has been buying and selling people and stories for decades. Trump got an entire media campaign based on lies, for free while defaming his opponents. How much media would Trump have had to BUY for that kind of coverage?

PS Where's Dylan Howard? In Australia, how conveeeeient, Trump gave him a pardon in 2016 for what exactly? Something election fraud, IDK. If it's not in the Enquirer how would I know about it?

Keep digging yourself deeper, r106.

[quote]I'm more National Enquirer than US Constitution, but WTF, the guy screaming FAKE NEWS has been buying and selling people and stories for decades. Trump got an entire media campaign based on lies, for free while defaming his opponents. How much media would Trump have had to BUY for that kind of coverage?

This is why I no longer concern myself about Trump. He is who he is. It's all about his enablers. What consequences do they face or should they face? Sidney Powell still has her law licenses; Guiliani still owns his properties; Mark Meadows is working somewhere and getting paid well; Josh Hawley is till safely part of Congress; Marjorie Taylor Green has been elevated to running Congress; on an on...

^Mark Meadows? Is it rude for me to ask, where the fucking Russian binder is or why he hasn't been waterboarded in Gitmo to find out? Seriously, why has no one in the media even ASKED about this. Our most valuable security information is missing, last seen under Mark's arm.

In the eyes of the Supreme Court majority, if he wins the election, it doesn't matter. If he loses, well, he's a loser and fuck 'em. The Court will issue some opinion that says there is some immunity, but it's complicated. The lower courts will eventually say that this wasn't an official act and not covered by that decision and deny him immunity. Then the Supreme Court will deny cert on any appeal he makes of that if it takes place after the election. They will suddenly no longer care if he loses. I imagine they all secretly despise Trump except for the way he "triggers the libs". But I'm sure someone like Roberts has no respect for him.

Can someone PLEASE ask Pecker how many Epstein stories he bought? Also, Tom Cruise, if there's time. TIA

Is it true that the wife of one of a justice was texting with Mark Meadows about the certification of the election?

Does she regret drunk dialing Anita Hill's office voice mail on an early weekend morning over a decade after Clarence's confirmation to tell her she had to apologize for ruining her husband's reputation?

No one in the media seems to care about the binder Meadows absconded with nor do they care that Trump stole and sold nuclear secrets that belong to our country.

Laziest fuckers ever.

^Every day is an Etch a Sketch and every crime is unrelated. Might someone mention once in awhile that he outed a Mossad agent to Russia and Syria after firing crazy guy, FBI Comey?

Poor Donald. They must protect him from ever being in trouble. Thank God these wise MEN are protecting our wonderful President.

Only the American people can convict him... at the polls. Will they get off their cell phones long enough to vote?

I don’t see why we can’t vote by cell phones. If they’re secure enough for the banks, they should be secure enough to vote.

[QUOTE]Only the American people can convict him... at the polls. Will they get off their cell phones long enough to vote?

Why do you think "polls" are superior to the ballot box or our criminal court system, r119? "Polls" are now oftentimes run by customers who demand results, hence terrible sampling and weighing systems run by shady outfits built to please their GQP clients, fallacious misrepresenting their data to get cash from modern Republican candidates who eschew reality any time it approaches them.

R120 that poster is referring to the polling stations. "The polls." BY VOTING. Are you trying to be funny or are you stupid?

Tell me where I was wrong about fallacious polling, r121.

You really are remarkably stupid, and defensive.

Yet you are unable to deliver?

Personally, I cannot wait to vote for the Biden/Harris ticket. I can't really do much to fight the Trump/MAGA/Putin corruption as I am just one fabulous gay, but my vote against their Orange Jesus will be my own FU to them all.

If my vote didn't count, they wouldn't be trying to depress me enough to not vote, or to try and convince me to vote for Orange Jesus, or to bully me from voting.

Oh no, fascist bitches. My vote is mine. And I am voting for Democracy and voting for Joe Biden!

It HAS been explained to you R120 R122 R124.

At R120 you misunderstood the meaning of "polls" in r118 and R119 posts.

That R118 poster YOU QUOTE is not referring to opinion polling AT ALL. He is referring to VOTING.

Neither R118 nor R119 said anything about opinion polling.

As long as we're re-litigating Abraham Lincoln's acts as the US President, I'll offer that he was wrong.

He was wrong not to tell the Confederacy-

"Go ahead. We'll partition. You're on your own. Any Yankees here in the North who are sympathetic to the Confederacy? I suggest you pack-up and move South now. Any Slaves and Rebels who want to remain in the Union? Move North now.

Confederacy, you will not be allowed to use slave labor. If you do, a blockade will surround you. You'll be unable to sell your cotton because it's subject to an embargo. And any foreign country who attempts to violate the embargo will experience consequences.

Good luck trying to get around the embargo while your cotton rots in warehouses. Meanwhile, our industrial north will continue to manufacture goods, ammunition and jobs; jobs that immigrants will prefer over being your servants.

Bye, Felicia"

Simplistic? Yes. But that what-if daydream is worth it.

Biden will win this. Trump will be a nonverbal tree sloth by November.

His federal criminal trials will pick up after the election.

One of the things Biden's WH quite desperately needs to address in the 2nd term is supreme court reform.

R127 rather stupid daydream. The south seceded. If Lincoln or congress had accepted the secession then hobnailed the new southern nation, there would have been a war because the South had sufficient wealth to fight a war. What happened is surprisingly similar anyway, to your "daydream". The Union blockaded the Confederacy.

“2nd term is supreme court reform…”

You know what?—you really sound dumb. Will he just snap his fingers and the Constitution will amend itself to his liking? Will he twitch his nose and re-write the federal code on appellate jurisdiction? Will he pull a revised legal ethics code out of his back pocket?

The constitution? Interesting, where does it say anything about this in the constitution, r130? We’ll wait.

[quote]Trump will be a nonverbal tree sloth by November.

I've never won the lottery, and never will. The above prediction actualised would though let me know what such a win might feel like.

I am also in favor of Bush Jr having to share a cell with Clinton and the corpse of Reagan, for their crimes.

Let's fuckin go!

R131. Go learn something —try reading Article IIII of the Constitution. Then read Marbury v. Madison. Then shut up…we can wait

Article III* R131

My fat fingers…

[quote] the South had sufficient wealth to fight a war.

With the exception of these words, I'll pass over your insult of using the word "stupid" with the silence it deserves by just saying Wrong, r129.

While we're both playing the What if? game, there are some realities that expose the wrongness of your above statement.

The Southern military was living hand-to-mouth as early as 1862 or 1863. Deserting to go home and try to feed their families was common.

If the South had sufficient wealth to fight a war, why didn't they? Well? Hmmm?

France wasn't going to help the South. They were too busy trying to establish a colony in Mexico. England wanted the cotton but wasn't going to help.

Meanwhile, European immigrants were pouring into NY York disembarking from steerage and would've been glad to obtain work in Northern manufacturing plants and the industrial economy.

You assert "the South had sufficient wealth to fight a war." Support that statement.

Meanwhile I'll re-read about Union General William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea, and he and his Union Troops weren't marching through Southern wealth.

R134? If we could find a way to relitigate Marbury v. Madison, and get rid of judicial review, the Supreme Court would barely have a job.

Who said that? I didn’t.

R136 they did fight a war, dumbass, for 4 years.

Only on DL are queens Monday-morning-quarterbacking the Civil War.

And, so much for their wealth, r139, because just like Trump, the Confederacy is a LOSER.

Although, viewing events up to the present day, Reconstruction does cause me to wonder about that.

The North should’ve never let the Confederacy get-up off the mat. “Reconstruction”, some would argue was exactly that.

The Confederacy won the social media, as the kids would say…it was the failure of Reconstruction that did that.

Your 10th grade history teacher: it’s a Lost Cause that found a home for too long.

Yes, let's continue to hijack this thread with the fucking Civil War.

[quote]Only on DL are queens Monday-morning-quarterbacking the Civil War. Yes, let's continue to hijack this thread with the fucking Civil War.

It's a fascinating history and era of which most of it has not been taught and/or taught incorrectly but remains a constant objective by many to sweep under the rug and totally forgotten about. IMHO, it is unresolved issues of the Civil War and Reconstruction that are the direct origins of most of the issues/problems that we, as a nation, wrestle with to this very day.

Fine, R144, and you may have a point. May I suggest you start a separate thread?

Voters can make Turd a loser. Then the Supreme court, Aileen Cannon, etc. will be irrelevant. He'll be left with dwindling donations and years of legal troubles.

That’s the hope R146 that he’ll lose in November and spend the rest of his miserable fucking life consumed by costly legal proceedings.

And nobody wants Trump to lose more than establishment Republicans.

And, while I'm at it, nobody except for Melania and his kids wishes Trump would FINALLY topple over dead from a massive coronary or heart attack.

And knowing that is the only cause for my bemusement in this whole obscene environment caused by that POS of Trump and his moronic voters.

[quote] And nobody wants Trump to lose more than establishment Republicans.

They wanted him to lose in the primaries and lose the nomination. Now that Trump has the nomination and the alternative is Biden, you’ll see those Republicans do what Sununu did.

You know what r145?

In my over 20 years here at the DL, somehow, I never had to read a post that I could tell wasn't one I wanted to read and then, miracle of miracles, I could move on to the next post that was on-topic.

And one of the absurd, enduring charms of the DL is that threads sometimes do veer-off into a side rumble by a couple of posters and many of those rumbles were very amusing.

Exactly, R146/R147. And all the SCOTUS machinations will be meaningless, and MAGAts will be neutered. That's the best-case scenario.

[quote] many of those rumbles were very amusing

To a point, R150.

R146 agreed…but that’s no thanks to the other elements of our “democratic institutions”— multiple layers of protections are not so good as we had assumed, in the breach…

Yes, Trump's an idiot and look at the damage he's done. Someone much smarter than he is going to emerge at some point and really push our norms and institutions to the point of no return.

A “smart” Trump would have walked away with victory in 2020, and would be running the show even now… sleep well tonight ;)

George Conway's not so pessimistic:

"First, he argued, the justices’ probing questions about whether there could or should be a distinction between a president’s official and private acts didn’t necessarily indicate they were gearing up to make that distinction official: 'Sometimes you’ll see courts engage in these wide-ranging discussions and not a hint of it shows up in the opinion.' But he also made the case that people shouldn’t discount the notion of some form of official-act immunity altogether:

'I do not think that the Court is taking Trump’s specific claims that he is being mistreated and that he should not be prosecuted for what he did as alleged in this indictment—I do not think that there are five votes to sustain Trump’s position. I do think that in making the arguments that he should have this absolute immunity, he is raising some concerns that are legitimate—that there could be abusive prosecutions if you had the wrong kind of president in the future. And those are worthy of concern.'"

R134 So, Mr Smarty Pants, how justices does the Constitution mandate? Oh, right, it doesn't. For the first 80 years of the republic the number fluctuated between 5 and 10. It's completely reasonable to set as a goal... term limits, and expand the number. Legislation? Possible. Amendment? Harder, but possible.

You can’t change the term by legislation. Remind me what happened the last time a president tried to change the size of the Court —yea, Duh.

Go back to your basement.

Do you mean FDR, r157? The mere threat of packing the Court changed their tune on his New Deal legislation.

I’m immune I’m immune and if you say no you’re a communist. If im not 100% in the right, it’s a witch hunt. The laws don’t apply to me, I have a presidential campaign. What scandal? I’m a winner and these losers are all jealous! We will walk down Pennsylvania Avenue in victory. Stormy your day will come! Gag me with a spoon order my ass. 🤡

You know there's something worth noting about this court. Depending on the issue, you will sometimes get Barrett, or Roberts or Kavanaugh to side with the three Liberals. Or maybe all three will. But Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito are rigid, hateful POS rotten MFs. They will never side with the three Liberals. Ever.

R157 Right, FDR was such a failure.

Gorsuch did write a pro-LGBT decision. Something about employment discrimination (I don't remember).

[quote] [R131]. Go learn something —try reading Article IIII of the Constitution. Then read Marbury v. Madison. Then shut up…we can wait

Not so fast r134, we all know article 3 governs the court. Care to enlighten us as to what provisions in article 3, or M v M for that matter, prevents court reform. We’re STILL waiting.

Y'all. John Roberts is the Chief. He has administrative duties and he has authority to conduct investigations and disciplinary measures against all judges in the Federal court system, including SCOTUS judges. He has done absolutely nothing but whitewash a bullshit investigation against Kavanaugh. Roberts is the weakest most craven POS chief justice we have had that I know of.

R161 his court-packing plan was a major failure, yes.

No, it wasn't, r165. As said earlier, just the threat of such a plan caused the Court to stop rejecting his New Deal policies.

“I’m profoundly disturbed about the apparent direction of the court,” J. Michael Luttig told me. “I now believe that it is unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.”

“I believe it is now likely either that Trump will get elected and instruct his attorney general to drop the charges, or that the Supreme Court will grant him immunity from prosecution."

No r166. It was a major political failure —there was a huge swing against the Democrats in the next mid-term election, and further New Del reforms were held back. The change in the Court came from several retirements and death, not because the court unilaterally changed course in response to the plan. You’re just plain wrong.

That’s really sad that Luttig has thrown in the towel, but I don’t blame him. By saying they were not interested in the facts of this case, the Supreme Court conservatives have normalized January 6, 2021. Would they act the same way if Obama had orchestrated something similar? No. They are highly partisan.

I think they will - similar to the Colorado decision - make up new rules that favor Trump and put themselves in the driver’s seat. And it will be another 5-4 decision, the men favoring Trump and delay and the women saying he should be held accountable now.

you know if my mother (RIP) and her two sisters were running the show, Trump and all his allies would be dead. Fuck the Constitution.

Reading R167's linked article has me about as depressed as I remember being since that fat lump was elected in 2016.

Ok, more.

It's unreal what Republicans are trying to turn America into -- which is a clone of Russia. Russia is a shithole. An absolute shithole.

Does Jack Smith have a Plan B?

Odd that the piece at r172 doesn't mention Justice Barrett directly bringing up that idea:

JUSTICE BARRETT: And since you bring up the private acts, this is my last question. So I had asked Mr. Sauer about, on page 46 and 47 of your brief --

MR. DREEBEN: Yes.

JUSTICE BARRETT: -- you say, even if the Court were inclined to recognize some immunity for a former president's official acts, it should remand for trial because the indictment alleges substantial private conduct.

MR. DREEBEN: Yes.

JUSTICE BARRETT: And you said that the private conduct would be sufficient.

MR. DREEBEN: Yes.

JUSTICE BARRETT: The Special Counsel has expressed some concern for speed and wanting to move forward. So, you know, the normal process, what Mr. Sauer asked, would be for us to remand if we decided that there were --

MR. DREEBEN: Mm-hmm.

JUSTICE BARRETT: -- some official acts immunity and to let that be sorted out below. Is another option for the Special Counsel to just proceed based on the private conduct and drop the official conduct?

R172 that won’t do the trick—Trump could still appeal, pre-trial, that done/all “clearly” private acts may still be official acts…restarting the whole process. The only saving grace is the Court (i) upholding the Circuit Court in full or (ii) remanding yet allowthe trial judge to instruct the jury on official vs. private acts.

As many have noted—at this point it is up to the voters to save the day, or allow our republic to die on the vine.

Every time there's breaking news I hope that he's dead.

I'm old but I've never hated anyone in my lifetime. Strongly disliked but not hatred. Now that I know what it is, I don't like it one bit but it's his fault.

[quote] I don't like it one bit but it's his fault.

There are a lot of things for which people use the Geraldine defense (“The Devil made me do it.”). It’s been interesting to see in the age of Trump how much people blame Trump for their own behavior.

I agree r176. I have such hatred for him. I mean, I hate Mitch McConnell, Putin, Matt Gaetz, and the whole gang of right wing idiots, but I’m probably more disgusted by them than hateful. But I hate Dump with every fiber of my being.

You can tell from the questioning that they already know how they're going to vote. It was almost like following a script, all for show.

[quote] You can tell from the questioning that they already know how they're going to vote. It was almost like following a script, all for show.

So it was your first time listening to SC oral arguments, eh?