(Thread IKs:
weg, Toxic Mental)
|
I thought C-Spam leaks were incredibly tedious, but the SH/SC derail is making me rethink that. Anyways, no immunity  Get hosed Donald!
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Jonny Quest posted:But not moist? I could take it or leave it
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:23
|
|
|
SCOTUS could, in theory, decline to take the case, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:24
|
|
|
Source: The Bible
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208593677.0.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
 get hosed you tangerine dickhead
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
Pull an Elvis while Truthing this one
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
kazil posted:SCOTUS could, in theory, decline to take the case, right? So the choices are “punt until after the election,” “say Trump is not immune,” or empower Biden to do some really funny stuff
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
Without immunity, this will really hurt Trump’s chances on Survivor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
I'm two pages back can someone tell me how long the battle for uber IT nerd supremacy goes on so I can skip those pages
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
You can always safely ignore anything posted itt from 9pm to 9am
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:27
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:I'm two pages back can someone tell me how long the battle for uber IT nerd supremacy goes on so I can skip those pages It's not long, thankfully.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:27
|
|
|
kazil posted:SCOTUS could, in theory, decline to take the case, right? In theory? Sure, but forget it. Separation of power issues like that is as relevant to SCOTUS as it gets. Not taking this on would amount to derilicition of duty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:27
|
|
|
Disco Pope posted:It's not long, thankfully. But it is girthy
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:28
|
|
|
Silly Burrito posted:Without immunity, this will really hurt Trump’s chances on Survivor. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:31
|
|
|
Nessus posted:If they do that the lower decision stands I believe Dollars to donuts they'd bet on "DECORUM" preventing Biden from wielding ABSOLUTE POWER!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
That's really going to cut into Habba's Fox News time
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
Aramis posted:In theory? Sure, but forget it. Separation of power issues like that is as relevant to teh SCOTUS as it gets. Not taking this on would amount to derilicition of duty. I’m pretty sure the right thing to do in this case would be for SCOTUS to decline and let this ruling stand. SCOTUS is only supposed to get involved when there’s a dispute to resolve, and there is no dispute here. Nothing anywhere says that a president or any other elected official gets to commit crimes, Trump and his lawyers are quite literally pulling “presidential immunity” from their rear end. SCOTUS agreeing to hear this case at all gives Trump’s argument far more deference than it deserves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:33
|
|
|
So, Trump files appeal at last minute on 2/12. SC has to "consider" it for a few months, bingo bango, it's June.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:33
|
|
|
Hahaha get hosed Donald. No immunity for you. Supreme Court will probably uphold it too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:33
|
|
|
I think most people agree there's no chance SCOTUS is going to rule he has TOTAL IMMUNITY. The question will be if there's enough of them who want to help Trump stall that they'll force the court to take it up to delay, even if they have no intent on ruling in his favor ultimately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:35
|
|
|
Rod Hoofhearted posted:I’m pretty sure the right thing to do in this case would be for SCOTUS to decline and let this ruling stand. SCOTUS is only supposed to get involved when there’s a dispute to resolve, and there is no dispute here. Nothing anywhere says that a president or any other elected official gets to commit crimes, Trump and his lawyers are quite literally pulling “presidential immunity” from their rear end. The right thing to do is to take it on, explicitly and quickly uphold the judgement, and enshrine it as SCOTUS precedent to shut him and any other would-be dictator up for a long-rear end time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Dollars to donuts they'd bet on "DECORUM" preventing Biden from wielding ABSOLUTE POWER!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
Deviantart pieces are the most anatomically correct art of all time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
Aramis posted:The right thing to do is to take it on, explicitly and quickly uphold the judgement, and enshrine it as SCOTUS precedent to shut him and any other would-be dictator up for a long-rear end time. If they decline to take it, doesn’t this ruling become the precedent? There’s pretty much no reason to take it up just to affirm it except to delay things. And overturning it means Biden can literally kill them, so…
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
Rescue Toaster posted:I think most people agree there's no chance SCOTUS is going to rule he has TOTAL IMMUNITY. The question will be if there's enough of them who want to help Trump stall that they'll force the court to take it up to delay, even if they have no intent on ruling in his favor ultimately. I doubt it. Didn't they already shoot down one of Trump's other appeals as quickly as they could? I think from the Florida case if I'm not mistaken. I don't think even this court will take the "president has total immunity, actually" as a serious argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
Who won the DNS argument? I don’t wanna read the posts I just keep of rank of the mating value of every poster and that’s gonna affect it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
If the Bible’s so smart, where’s the germ theory? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I doubt it. Didn't they already shoot down one of Trump's other appeals as quickly as they could? I think from the Florida case if I'm not mistaken. I don't think even this court will take the "president has total immunity, actually" as a serious argument. I recall them shooting something down as well but can't remember what.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:41
|
|
|
vaginite posted:I just keep of rank of the mating value of every poster Hold up, where do I access this spreadsheet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:41
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:I'm two pages back can someone tell me how long the battle for uber IT nerd supremacy goes on so I can skip those pages I’m not an IT person but I’m pretty sure at one point one of the computer-touchers threatens the other one by saying “you have no idea who you’re talking to”
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:42
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Especially the part about lusting after dudes who are hung like horses and You know I should know this after working at a zoo for so many years, but I never was involved really with hoofstock beyond a few weeks, and we certainly did not have horses or donkeys. Do donkeys really have that much more than horses do?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:42
|
|
like donkeys. Very historical.
|
I wish one of his handlers would just stick a GoPro on trifp's suit. He'd never look down long enough to find it, and we'd get high quality video of his real time reactions to the continued disloyalty of these activist judges and scheming henchmen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:42
|
|
|
Rod Hoofhearted posted:If they decline to take it, doesn’t this ruling become the precedent? My understanding, and I might very well be wrong on this, is that declining to take the case lets the judgement in the circuit court stand, but does not necessarily mean that the SCOTUS is explicitly endorsing/upholding it as is. It's literally a refusal to rule on the matter after all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:43
|
|
|
Now if Engoron would do his goddamn job
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:43
|
|
|
Aramis posted:My understanding, and I might very well be wrong on this, is that declining to take the case lets the judgement in the circuit court stand, but does not necessarily mean that the SCOTUS is explicitly endorsing/upholding it as is. It's literally a refusal to rule on the matter after all. Yeah, I am also not a law-knower, but I think the idea is rulings that are correct don’t get taken up by SCOTUS. SCOTUS is there either because something in the ruling might be wrong and needs addressing, or because different courts are ruling differently on it and there’s a dispute to be resolved. Not taking something up basically means, “this ruling is fine as-is and serves as a valid precedent for all future rulings.” They literally don’t have the time to take up every settled ruling, and in fact don’t have time to take up a ton of unsettled stuff (hello, qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture!), so it’s extra offensive what this Court did with Roe v Wade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:50
|
|
|
Grey Cat posted:Hold up, where do I access this spreadsheet? It’s in my head. I’m #1 (obv), you’re pretty high too. Winning an IT argument at a certain MMR graduates someone out of the “do not reproduce” league.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:52
|
|
|
Aramis posted:In theory? Sure, but forget it. Separation of power issues like that is as relevant to SCOTUS as it gets. Not taking this on would amount to derilicition of duty. Yeah, this is another situation where the court is going to want to set down firm rules. And the rules will absolutely be "pesidents are not kings, and ex-presidents really aren't kings". Rod Hoofhearted posted:I’m pretty sure the right thing to do in this case would be for SCOTUS to decline and let this ruling stand. SCOTUS is only supposed to get involved when there’s a dispute to resolve, and there is no dispute here. Nothing anywhere says that a president or any other elected official gets to commit crimes, Trump and his lawyers are quite literally pulling “presidential immunity” from their rear end. Thing is, presidential immunity is Trump's favorite legal argument so it's gotten spread far and wide under multiple circuits and jurisdictions. That, and the fact that the ex-president is a crime elemental, gives the court a novel legal issue to address. And it's one where it's an easy layup for them at a time when everyone is questioning their legitimacy. Ueah, the chuddiest of the cultists will be mad that they didn’t protect His Corpulence Donald I, but everyone else will be on their side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:53
|
|
|
It wouldn't surprise me if the Supreme Court declined to take up the matter but left the door open so they can take up the matter later which is something they have done before.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
vaginite posted:Who won the DNS argument? I don’t wanna read the posts I just keep of rank of the mating value of every poster and that’s gonna affect it. The only way to win is not to play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:57
|
|