|
Evil Fluffy posted:Presumably the 9th is going to overrule his "I'm tossing all charges BECAUSE ANTIFA ARE THE REAL TERRISTS" decision as well and hopefully have the judge removed from the case and it handed to someone whose brain hasn't turned into a bubbling cauldron of diarrhea and white wing talking points. Aren’t there more permanent ways the judge can spike the case if push comes to shove?
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2024 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Aren’t there more permanent ways the judge can spike the case if push comes to shove? Waiting until the jury was sworn in and then dismissing it would do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2024 04:52
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Waiting until the jury was sworn in and then dismissing it would do it. Surely you were not thinking of someone in the District of Southern Florida when you typed that out, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2024 06:33
|
|
|
The SCOTUS appears to be calling out Florida/Texas' bullshit regarding social media moderation in the NetChoice hearings today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2024 04:05
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Waiting until the jury was sworn in and then dismissing it would do it. That also seems like something that could be immediately appealed along with asking for sanctions against the judge for loving around, no?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 17:43
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:That also seems like something that could be immediately appealed along with asking for sanctions against the judge for loving around, no? I mean, it might have implications for their future as a judge and attorney, but it is unappealable by the prosecution and would invoke double jeopardy for a defendant making them safe regarding the issues in that case. Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Feb 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean, it might have implications for their future as a judge and attorney, but it is unappealable by the prosecution and would invoke double jeopardy for a defendant making them safe regarding the issues in that case. It is worth noting that these issues typically are decided before jeopardy attaches for that exact reason. If Cannon dismisses before the trial starts they can appeal. If she refuses to rule they will likely go to the 11th to try to nip this in the bud, be it by trying tk have her removed etc. By statute this is correct, but I could see a novel 'are you loving kidding me' appeal getting some level of traction regardless if she went that far beyond the pale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
Caros posted:It is worth noting that these issues typically are decided before jeopardy attaches for that exact reason. No such appeal would work but Cannon doesn't have the balls for such a play anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 21:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1762961167167664586?t=_3Jr_K2IE536qusA-5Fiew&s=19 Looks like the Supremes have decided to weigh in on whether or not former presidents are able to do a Sam Bankman and crime all day every day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:08
|
|
|
So, no trial until after election, awesome job, way to go Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 01:26
|
|
|
Big Slammu posted:So, no trial until after election, awesome job, way to go Supreme Court. More likely trial in October.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 01:32
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:More likely trial in October. Is it funnier if they drop the verdict on election day? Or the day after. I suppose it depends on who wins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 01:35
|
|
|
Caros posted:Is it funnier if they drop the verdict on election day? Or the day after. Ideally the jury is sequestered while the recount is happening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
Caros posted:https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1762961167167664586?t=_3Jr_K2IE536qusA-5Fiew&s=19 That they're even willing to consider it is loving idiotic but having any faith in this court is just asking to be disappointed unless you're a Christian extremist or fascist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:17
|
|
|
How often does the Supreme court decisively side with a unanimous lower court ruling? I hear people saying SCOTUS just wants to rule on the issue, but if the lower court is unanimous that doesn't seem necessary
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 03:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:More likely trial in October.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 03:16
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I will be amazed if this trial happens before the election. I'm just betting on the most hilarious outcome at this point. Trial and conviction in October, sentencing delayed until December.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 03:20
|
|
|
This judge has already let Trump dictate the way this trial will be handled even before this dumb immunity claim, so that is why I will just go ahead and assume that after SCOTUS rules the trial will get punted to 2025
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 03:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Cannon doesn't have the balls for such a play anyway. What makes you say this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 03:38
|
|
|
the funniest outcome would be no immunity, but he cannot be removed from the ballot, and he wins the election with the charges still pending. 6-3 yes immunity in mid June would be the stupidest outcome, though, so I assume it's what we'll get
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 04:39
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean, it might have implications for their future as a judge and attorney, but it is unappealable by the prosecution and would invoke double jeopardy for a defendant making them safe regarding the issues in that case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 04:50
|
|
|
Javid posted:the funniest outcome would be no immunity, but he cannot be removed from the ballot, and he wins the election with the charges still pending. OddObserver fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Feb 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 05:30
|
|
|
raminasi posted:What makes you say this? Cannonballs were superseded by explosive shells in the 18th century
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 06:15
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:No such appeal would work but Cannon doesn't have the balls for such a play anyway. it's literally her only raison d'etre
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 10:58
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Wouldn't you make the same "jeopardy never attached" argument as if they had bribed the judge? Don't be silly, you can't just bribe a judge! - Clarence Thomas, probably
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 12:02
|
|
|
SixFigureSandwich posted:Don't be silly, you can't just bribe a judge! It's still bonkers to me that Ginni Thomas wanted to overturn the election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 15:16
|
|
|
Javid posted:the funniest outcome would be no immunity, but he cannot be removed from the ballot, and he wins the election with the charges still pending. I'll be surprised if they give a "yes the POTUS is immune from criminal prosecution and only Congress can impeach and prosecute" ruling while a Dem is in office even if it is someone as senile and middling as Biden. If they do I think it'll be a 5-4 ruling because Roberts will want to try and appear impartial and see it as a politically terrible decision like when Roe was overturned and he tried to sway Kavanaugh so the GOP wouldn't suffer election losses due to it (which they did and continue to do). Though if they do declare him immune the best response would be for Biden to just put out a vague "remember that this ruling does in fact apply to current presidents and not just former ones" statement. Bubbacub posted:It's still bonkers to me that Ginni Thomas wanted to overturn the election. It shouldn't be bonkers to you if you know literally anything about her. It'd have been shocking if she didn't try to overturn the election given she's a political creature through and through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 18:09
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:That they're even willing to consider it is loving idiotic but having any faith in this court is just asking to be disappointed unless you're a Christian extremist or fascist. As a dude that knows very little, I assume oral arguments are a tradition of the supreme court. I find the greater absurdity being that rather than rely on the information in front of them, we need to have a goober stand before them and say "He's above the law. Not Biden tho, god bless".
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 18:31
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:It's still bonkers to me that Ginni Thomas wanted to overturn the election. Her only value to me is that if the SC starts to come after every form of marriage not anointed by the holy bible, the interracial form will magically be deflected.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 18:32
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:As a dude that knows very little, I assume oral arguments are a tradition of the supreme court. I find the greater absurdity being that rather than rely on the information in front of them, we need to have a goober stand before them and say "He's above the law. Not Biden tho, god bless". Several Justices have said that oral arguments are a waste of time. Justice Thomas went like 10 years without asking a question in them too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Several Justices have said that oral arguments are a waste of time. The standard statement is “you can’t win your case at oral argument but you can definitely lose it.” At SCOTUS it’s more useful for the justices to signal to each other what they’re thinking/interested in/concerned about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
Oral arguments promote the idea that the Supreme Court is composed of impartial judges who consult a variety of legal perspectives before reaching a considered opinion. However, while this concept is fundamental to the court’s societal sway, this idea flies in the face of a reality where Republicans backroom with their party powerbrokers and then issue decrees. Thomas enjoys spiting oral arguments because it demonstrates his role as an oligarch. It’s just a power trip, no different from a cop ignoring a driver while writing out a ticket.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Feb 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I'll be surprised if they give a "yes the POTUS is immune from criminal prosecution and only Congress can impeach and prosecute" ruling while a Dem is in office even if it is someone as senile and middling as Biden. If they do I think it'll be a 5-4 ruling because Roberts will want to try and appear impartial and see it as a politically terrible decision like when Roe was overturned and he tried to sway Kavanaugh so the GOP wouldn't suffer election losses due to it (which they did and continue to do). In a 3-0 ruling, SCOTUS rules that the president is not, in fact, immune from prosecution for ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate the right wing of SCOTUS
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
SEALs are all chuds. Biden could probably cobble together a team from the CIA though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
e: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 20:30
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:SEALs are all chuds. Biden could probably cobble together a team from the CIA though. Could he send Major on the mission?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 20:52
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Oral arguments promote the idea that the Supreme Court is composed of impartial judges who consult a variety of legal perspectives before reaching a considered opinion. However, while this concept is fundamental to the court’s societal sway, this idea flies in the face of a reality where Republicans backroom with their party powerbrokers and then issue decrees. Thomas enjoys spiting oral arguments because it demonstrates his role as an oligarch. It’s just a power trip, no different from a cop ignoring a driver while writing out a ticket. they do at least provide a more concise exploration of a case for consumption by the general public, which isn't going to read a bunch of briefs and written arguments. it makes sense to have a summary of arguments, and we have those presented as discussions because it's a digestible format
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 21:45
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:SEALs are all chuds. Biden could probably cobble together a team from the CIA though. So stung when the GWB administration did nothing and then the effete black liberal successor was like "hey guys I have something for you to do in Abbottabad"
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:So stung when the GWB administration did nothing and then the effete black liberal successor was like "hey guys I have something for you to do in Abbottabad" Must have been genuinely frustrating to wait so long before getting to cash in on a book deal. The GWB era feels like a lifetime ago, I lived through this poo poo but I forgot how crazy it was. quote:After the failure to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, the Bush administration initially denied any evidence of his presence in the battle. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld argued that the threat posed by Islamist extremism went beyond one individual, and there was no certainty about bin Laden's presence. Vice President Dick Cheney avoided addressing the matter entirely, choosing to never mention or talk about the battle's occurrence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Must have been genuinely frustrating to wait so long before getting to cash in on a book deal. How could you possibly forget this  E: oops getting kind of off-topic, forgot which thread this was 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 18:55
|
|