|
StumblyWumbly posted:If SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump, doesn't that mean Biden can just start assassinating people? I think Biden should actually go on some talk show and jokingly state that if he’s already issued the order that if SCOTUS rules that Presidents are immune to criminal prosecution then seal team six is going to shoot Thomas and Alito. Let them stew on that for two months while they prepare.
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:56 |
|
|
small butter posted:Is there any charitable reading of why the Supreme Court would take up the Trump immunity case? No there is not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:48
|
|
|
small butter posted:Is there any charitable reading of why the Supreme Court would take up the Trump immunity case? They can both delay the cases some (good for Trump) and tell Trump he does not have presidential immunity (good for them).
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:48
|
|
|
Wasn't Smith the one that wanted SCOTUS to settle this once and for all?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:51
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I think Biden should actually go on some talk show and jokingly state that if he’s already issued the order that if SCOTUS rules that Presidents are immune to criminal prosecution then seal team six is going to shoot Thomas and Alito. I'd honestly have this thrown into arguments before the court. Just make it as blunt as possible what the possible ramifications are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:51
|
|
|
My charitable reading is they are just planning on delaying his cases long enough for him to get his shot at winning the election and that they have no intention of actually saying the president is can crime all he wants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:53
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Wasn't Smith the one that wanted SCOTUS to settle this once and for all? Yeah like 2 months ago and they declined. This is some bullshit and there is no justification for them not just saying "no this is settled law, see US v Nixon and kindly gently caress off forever"
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:53
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Wasn't Smith the one that wanted SCOTUS to settle this once and for all? i believe yes, because otherwise the option would be available for trump's attorneys to slow-roll it up each step of the appellate process and jack smith short circuited it with "well lets just cut to the ending and let the highest court in the land decide it" Craig K fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Feb 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:54
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:My charitable reading is they are just planning on delaying his cases long enough for him to get his shot at winning the election and that they have no intention of actually saying the president is can crime all he wants. Yeah, it’s this. If he loses, they can rule he has no immunity and he goes to jail at some point during Biden’s second term. If he wins, they can rule he has no immunity but there’s no one left to prosecute him anyway. They aren’t going to save him by ruling that presidents can do infinite crimes
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:55
|
|
|
small butter posted:Is there any charitable reading of why the Supreme Court would take up the Trump immunity case? It's an unprecedented, fundamental constitutional issue, however silly it may seem. The SC wants to put their own stamp on it rather than just letting a lower court's opinion stand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:57
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Why would it be harder to get someone to pay after they lose their appeal, than after they lose the initial judgment? I’m not following that part. Because they might have a harder time paying after they've spent a bunch more money on lawyering for the appeal, and possibly faced other lawsuits or fines or consequences that might happen while the appeal is going on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:57
|
|
|
small butter posted:Is there any charitable reading of why the Supreme Court would take up the Trump immunity case? Doesn't letting the appeal court stand keep it as precedent only for that court's area, while an SC ruling sets precedent nationwide?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 03:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because they might have a harder time paying after they've spent a bunch more money on lawyering for the appeal, and possibly faced other lawsuits or fines or consequences that might happen while the appeal is going on. Yeah it's a way to prevent a Jarndyce v. Jarndyce situation, it guarantees the judgment actually benefits the plaintiffs instead of just enriching lawyers until there's nothing left cr0y posted:Wasn't Smith the one that wanted SCOTUS to settle this once and for all? He asked to skip the DC circuit of appeals because he knew Trump was going to appeal to SCOTUS with his his immunity argument, but they refused. DC circuit predictably ruled against Trump so now it's back to SCOTUS having wasted a few months (lightning speed as appeals go) small butter posted:Is there any charitable reading of why the Supreme Court would take up the Trump immunity case? This is a historical constitutional question, and they want to put their stamp on the decision, and unambiguously make it a nationwide decision. Even giving them this benefit of the doubt, to do this they're still willing to jeopardize the republic instead of 1) deciding the question right away like Smith requested 2) allowing the DC circuit decision to stand by denying cert 3) potentially taking longer than the election renders the question moot That's the charitable reading. More likely it will be this: Nitrousoxide posted:My charitable reading is they are just planning on delaying his cases long enough for him to get his shot at winning the election and that they have no intention of actually saying the president is can crime all he wants. haveblue posted:Yeah, it’s this. If he loses, they can rule he has no immunity and he goes to jail at some point during Biden’s second term. If he wins, they can rule he has no immunity but there’s no one left to prosecute him anyway. They aren’t going to save him by ruling that presidents can do infinite crimes
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 03:53
|
|
|
Didn't Legal Eagle point out that it was kinda irregular or kinda unprecedented to just skip to SCOTUS like that? I got the sense it isn't outrageous for SCOTUS to want to wait for it to make its proper path through the lower courts first?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 04:03
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Didn't Legal Eagle point out that it was kinda irregular or kinda unprecedented to just skip to SCOTUS like that? I got the sense it isn't outrageous for SCOTUS to want to wait for it to make its proper path through the lower courts first? I think so but like everyday is unprecedented anymore so 🤷♂️
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 04:16
|
|
|
BDawg posted:I’m sure the USSC will pull a Bush v. Gore and say it only applies to this specific circumstance. Doesn't matter so much if he uses Seal Team Six to off half the court and replace them with people who'll say it applies to him too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 04:16
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I think so but like everyday is unprecedented anymore so 🤷♂️ I tell ya, I could really go for some precedented times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 04:58
|
|
|
The problem these days is that our stare ain’t got no decisis no more!
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 05:03
|
|
|
small butter posted:Is there any charitable reading of why the Supreme Court would take up the Trump immunity case? The law folks I saw (This was prior to today, I must stress) said that in terms of legal discussion not really, but that in terms of wanting to affirm that this is Really Super Serious Settled Law by issuing a ruling from the highest court in the land and stomping on Trump's nonsense arguments once and for all, with the same rule applied nationwide, there is a degree of validity. However, this relies on the idea that the Court is going to rule against Trump and do so in a timely manner. So you may draw your own conclusions on exactly how charitable you'd need to be to accept this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 05:05
|
|
|
So what do you think Jack Smith thinks about this? 1. Do you think he would have rather the Supreme Court take it up or let the lower ruling stand? 2. Do you think that his main issue is the rather late timing? 3. Can the ruling actually be quick?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 05:09
|
|
|
small butter posted:So what do you think Jack Smith thinks about this? 1. He wanted the SCOTUS to take it up and rule, but he wanted it done awhile ago because he anticipated this would occur. So 2. Probably yes, it's... difficult to believe that even this Supreme Court would actually rule that the President is entirely permitted to commit crimes as a function of his office. At that point even the thinnest, most pathetically transparent fig leaf of the rule of law has been abolished and if nothing else I don't think (most of) these people want to eliminate the power of their own positions and institution. However, loving up some or all of the trials simply by running out the clock? That's a hell of a lot more palatable to them. Smith knows that the trials need to be done and dusted before the election and Trump's so manifestly, cataclysmically guilty that his entire strategy is to delay. 3. It can. It's exceedingly difficult to believe it will, but there's no inherent bar to it barreling down the tracks at 300 mph, and there have certainly been cases in history where things have been ruled on very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 05:45
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Didn't Legal Eagle point out that it was kinda irregular or kinda unprecedented to just skip to SCOTUS like that? I got the sense it isn't outrageous for SCOTUS to want to wait for it to make its proper path through the lower courts first? Sure, if it were a normal case and there were actual arguments to be decided. However there was no way Trump wasn't going to appeal this all the way and his argument is one hair about, "But I want to crime!" Also it's a Presidential powers issue that's pretty much the picture of a This is a case for the Supreme Court thing. Maybe the court actually will do a quick turn around and just wants enough time to hear arguments and release their, "gently caress no, dip poo poo" opinion. The more likely option however is it's just Roberts, Gorsich, Kavinaugh, and Bryant's way of trying to delay things enough to get their President Trump cake while being able to shake their heads and tut about the rule of law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 08:11
|
|
|
small butter posted:Is there any charitable reading of why the Supreme Court would take up the Trump immunity case?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 11:22
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Maybe the court actually will do a quick turn around [court starts groaning and turning slower than venus] ooooooohhhhhhhwffffffffff gotta do this properleeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyy theres formssssssss u have to fillllllllllll ouuuuuuuuuutttttttthhhhhggggggghhhhhh
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 12:00
|
|
|
In order to do things properly and allow time for the decision to be made unrushed, the court will hear arguments one word per day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 13:01
|
|
|
lol *decides Bush v. Gore in like two weeks* Well now we can't be too quick about these kinds of things have to take our time you see yep gotta go real slow juuuuust slow enough to get past this next election whoa wait what who said that what a coincidence gee how'd that happen weird.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 13:34
|
|
|
gently caress going slow. Look pretty sure everyone has the next hour free, supreme court just bang this one out. You all know how you're going to vote, just do a show of hands then bang the drat gavel to make it so, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 13:39
|
|
|
So why hasn't the immunity appeal also stopped the Georgia case? Has that argument simply not been filed yet in the Georgia matter?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 13:55
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:However, this relies on the idea that the Court is going to rule against Trump and do so in a timely manner. So you may draw your own conclusions on exactly how charitable you'd need to be to accept this. If the court decides 7-2 that Trump isn't immune, all it takes is for Thomas or Alito to just not write a loving dissent and that effectively stonewalls things indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 13:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:So why hasn't the immunity appeal also stopped the Georgia case? Has that argument simply not been filed yet in the Georgia matter? McAfee already ruled that this doesn't come under his official acts as president, so I guess he would have to appeal to Georgia's SC? Which he might have to do later maybe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 13:58
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:In order to do things properly and allow time for the decision to be made unrushed, the court will hear arguments one word per day. Letting,
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 13:59
|
|
|
I am beginning to agree with a poster who described Trump as demonically blessed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 13:59
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:Letting, No no no! The court ruled in gently caress v. You that a comma is itself an entire word. The court will hold a one month recess to sort out this irregularity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 14:10
|
|
|
99pct of germs posted:I am beginning to agree with a poster who described Trump as demonically blessed. Nah, no need to bring demons or anything in to this. It's just what happens when an entire society has been restructured around protecting the wealthy elite at the expense of everyone and everything else. Trump's getting a free ride because he's in the club and the club protects its own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 14:12
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:McAfee already ruled that this doesn't come under his official acts as president, so I guess he would have to appeal to Georgia's SC? Which he might have to do later maybe? Ah, ok.. Well, I hope wade and fani don't gently caress things up any further, either literally or figuratively
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 14:13
|
|
|
99pct of germs posted:I am beginning to agree with a poster who described Trump as demonically blessed. I have two literary examples that keep popping up in my head: 1) a sci-fi trilogy I enjoy where one element of the plot is that one character, and only one, discovered the power to travel back in time so he can fix his mistakes, and he does this over and over for centuries until he's finally fixed all of his society's major ills. Although in this comparison, Trump travels back only to enrich himself further and get out of jams and probably to kick a dog or child every now and then. 2) a sci-fi short story by either Clarke or Asimov where two characters are walking along in the woods, discussing the concept of infinite realities. One remarks "so there's a universe where you and I are walking along and then at the next turn a lion springs out and kills us?" The other responds "yes, that's basically it - in one universe out of a billion everything's the same, except that happens! Crazy!" And then they walk around the next turn and discover that they're in that universe. That's us, we're in the one universe stupid enough to let him have any degree of means and power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 14:15
|
|
|
Cimber posted:If the court decides 7-2 that Trump isn't immune, all it takes is for Thomas or Alito to just not write a loving dissent and that effectively stonewalls things indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 14:19
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:1) a sci-fi trilogy I enjoy where one element of the plot is that one character, and only one, discovered the power to travel back in time so he can fix his mistakes, and he does this over and over for centuries until he's finally fixed all of his society's major ills. Although in this comparison, Trump travels back only to enrich himself further and get out of jams and probably to kick a dog or child every now and then. Peter F Hamilton if I'm not mistaken. Every one of his his 10,000 page per book Science Fiction trilogies have universe melting plots that then get solved in the last 2 pages by fantasy magic. To be fair, the character that goes back in time is then worshiped by a cult that wants to destroys the universe....uh oh. We seem to be living in a Reality Dysfunction. When the dead rise from the grave, make you sure vote for Al Capone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 14:33
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Peter F Hamilton if I'm not mistaken. Every one of his his 10,000 page per book Science Fiction trilogies have universe melting plots that then get solved in the last 2 pages by fantasy magic. Yep, that's parts 3-5 of that series!
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:56 |
|
|
Staluigi posted:[court starts groaning and turning slower than venus] ooooooohhhhhhhwffffffffff gotta do this properleeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyy theres formssssssss u have to fillllllllllll ouuuuuuuuuutttttttthhhhhggggggghhhhhh Meanwhile watch them fall over themselves to rule that Illinois can't exclude Trump from the primary ballot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 15:05
|
|
