|
Xiahou Dun posted:"Evidence of USB ports" - Rudy, a man who has no idea how technology works. I laughed so hard at that audio clip. Literally demanding election workers' homes be searched for "any signs of USB ports"
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
Silly Burrito posted:This? This is what they're trying to refute? Not the other damning stuff? This? Quibbling over the definition of "lunged" and doing zapruder analysis of the logistics of fighting inside an SUV are good ways to distract the goldfish brains from all the incredibly damning information presented today
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 03:45
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:lol they're trying to pin everything on John Eastman because everything Trump did was "following the advice of counsel" Trump's lawyer was on NPR today and he just kept saying all of the charged behavior is just Trump exercising his first amendment right to free speech
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2023 01:40
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I think you could make a pretty compelling case that the people who were aggrieved in the cases he's being charged for have standing to challenge a self-pardon. They can challenge it but the text is pretty clear about when a president can't use a pardon quote:The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2023 00:41
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean, okay? But I was responding to the post saying he'd appoint an AG who would refuse to press the matter and there'd be no one who could do anything about it. That's clearly wrong since citizens could challenge it. It wouldn't come down to a 6-3 decision because the SC wouldn't even need to take up the question, the limits on the pardon power are very clear and they don't include anything about 'except in cases involving the president". It's not a murky legal issue at all. E: the legal remedy the Constitution provides for this obvious injustice is impeachment
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Yeah, remember that case about the webpage designer who didn't want to do a gay wedding? Well, the 'victim' wasn't even a webpage designer and she wasn't ever asked to design a webpage for a gay wedding. The USSC is supposed to deal with real controversy, not hypotheticals. Did that matter to them? Nope, not one bit. He's literally dead
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:No, once he's elected and wins then his disqualification becomes a nonjusticiable political question. And the USSC never has to risk getting shot at by fringe weirdos. This was my problem with the justices' theoretical about one state deciding the presidential election. Their proposed remedy, Congress refusing to seat an ineligible election winner, is just as insane and would cause just as much chaos when you're talking about president, senator, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I couldn't tell you the exact year the person I loved most in the world died without having to think about it because I really don't like thinking about it most of the time because it hurts. I am not an old man in a stressful job. Yeah, I remember vividly when my brother got in the car accident that would eventually end his life a couple years later, but the exact date of his death isn't something I have any interest in thinking about. I celebrate his birthday every year, thinking about the day he died isn't something I'd like to revisit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2024 07:13
|
|
|
Backcountry posted:Everyone is "allowed" to appeal, but our system is set up to where only those with enough money can afford to appeal. It seems like the court accommodating Trump's appeal, regardless of whether he can afford the $475M bond, then would be a step in the right direction? Allow the appeals process to play out regardless of the appellant's financial state?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Jesus chriat, the Republicans on the court really do want "if the president does it, it's legal" to be the actual standard. ACB sounds extremely skeptical of Trump's lawyer's argument Justice Beer sounded like he was on Trump's legal team
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 15:51
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1783521814758433212 Alito's entire train of thought today has been completely batshit
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 16:55
|
|
|
Gorsuch just like ugly laughed lol, like a witch cackle
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 17:07
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I would have agreed with you before I started reading about it today. Now, I'm honestly not sure, they may rule in favor of Trump. Same. Roberts sounds like he wants to find some technicality to punt it back to the lower courts, Thomas/Alito/Kavanaugh clearly are gonna endorse Trump's position, Gorsuch sounds like he's leaning towards Trump's side, ACB seems like a wildcard.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:I worry the SC is going to hold that official acts are immune, private acts are not, and the test of private/public is open enough that when Jack Smith comes back and says, “ok all these acts were private” trumps lawyers can argue “no they were public, if you look at them this way,” setting off endless rounds of further rulings with appeals with counter rulings with counter appeals ad infinitum. It’s definitely one of the two outcomes Trump’s lawyers want. It seems more likely than a blanket “he’s immune” ruling. One reason I think the SC might not split it into official/personal acts like this is that the supposed deterrent effect on presidential decisions (Alito's scare mongering about a president paralyzed by fear of being prosecuted) would still be there under that scenario. We can't have a president constantly trying to discern whether their actions are personal or not! I feel like they're more likely to just declare total immunity for the presidential term unless impeached+convicted rather than take the half measure.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2024 02:48
|
|