I started doing that with Scalia.
SCOTUS Issues
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
I wonder if Trump will go ballistic on Justice ACB and promise to have her removed from the Court. 
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
The best Justice of my lifetime. Too bad Obama had him offed.
She has been surprising lately.I wonder if Trump will go ballistic on Justice ACB and promise to have her removed from the Court.
Why? She is a balanced jurist, reminds me of Sandra Day O'Connor. Leaves the party behind.I wonder if Trump will go ballistic on Justice ACB and promise to have her removed from the Court.
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
And Justice Kavanaugh has taken dissent positions that put him squarely on the “liberal” side of the opinion. I think of Trump’s three nominations/confirmations, Gorsuch has shown the most fealty to the Constitution.
His concurring opinion in yesterday’s “Chevron Doctrine” overturning is worth a read too. In Gorsuch’s case, it was particularly interesting. His mother was EPA Administrator in the Reagan admin and took a lot of heat for budget cutting and relaxing of environmental regulations. Nice to see Justice Gorsuch play a part in reigning in the madness of regulations.
Edit: Chevron Doctrine opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
That’s not the loyalty Daddy Trump demands.
Technically not a dissent, but especially with the no standing ruling in the Missouri v Biden case.
Only in your mind, but then again there is not much room in your head for anything other than TDS!
gary_webb
Damned glad to meet you
Yes, I will.
If Joe-Tato is re-elected, interest rates will soar, and my investments will make me a wealthier man.
But what does that have to do with Bannon?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Judges are supposed to be apolitical and make decisions on what they understand about the law, however nuanced that may be.
Politics - especially now - doesn't allow grey areas - if you don't agree, you're evil, vile and need to be offed.
It's fine with me when a SCOTUS judge goes "off the reservation". Confirms to me that they think for themselves.
Politics - especially now - doesn't allow grey areas - if you don't agree, you're evil, vile and need to be offed.
It's fine with me when a SCOTUS judge goes "off the reservation". Confirms to me that they think for themselves.
We begin with the UK Independent’s alarming headline from this morning: “Biden warns Trump can do ‘whatever he pleases’ if elected as Republicans relish Supreme Court immunity ruling.” Tellingly, that was a modified headline. Earlier in the day, it more simply said, “Supreme Court awards Trump some immunity from prosecution.” Biden did say that though, even though the Supremes ended none of the Trump cases. Biden is cognitively functioning on par with an above-average boiled turnip. But Biden and his handlers have no idea how good the decision really was, or they would be crying much, much harder.[clip]
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...3ab2c-3958-4138-af8c-774427e7faf5_900x335.png
Let’s cut through all the noise right now. I’ll tell you what it actually said, and then I will explain why it changes everything. And after explaining how it doesn’t help Trump much, I’ll tell you how the Supreme Court sneakily helped Trump anyway, even though this decision largely ignored his actual cases. Stick with me for a minute, it will be worth it.
Regarding Presidential Immunity —for the first time in American history— the Supreme Court, solidly relying on a whole bunch of previous cases about related presidential issues, announced a brand-new three-tier immunity test:
Tier 1: Total Immunity for Constitutional Acts. “The President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” This blessed tier is only for when a president exercises explicit authority under Article Two of the Constitution. Things like negotiating treaties, issuing pardons, and directing military operations. As you can imagine, this is a small, well-defined tier.
Tier 2: Presumptive Immunity for Official Acts. The Court declared that “the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” In short, if the President acts officially, as President, that act is immune—but a prosecutor can still proceed if they can show criminalizing that type of conduct will not hinder the Presidential office.
Tier Two answers the Democrats’ most deranged temper tantrums. Prosecuting Presidents who order the military to assassinate (i.e. murder) their opponents would not harm the Presidential office, because presidents are not supposed to murder people, and it wouldn’t hinder the Presidential office to criminalize murder. Duh.
Tier 3: No Immunity for Unofficial Acts. “The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's unofficial acts. The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions.” For example, the Court said a President has zero immunity when he acts as the leader of his political party, or when pursuing his personal interests.
Actually, assassinating political rivals would probably fall squarely under Tier 3 — enjoying no immunity at all.
As you can see, this three-tier system neither turns Presidents into kings —not Burger King, impotent King Charles, or Solomon— nor places presidents above the law. Certainly not Trump. The decision only resolved a couple of the worst counts in a single Trump case. As for the surviving counts involved in this particular appeal (Judge Chutkan’s case), the Supremes bounced most of the counts back down to her, to apply the new test and then get back to them.
I know that’s a lot of legal mumbo jumbo. But stick with me. This is where it gets really good.
☕️ DEVASTATING ☙ Tuesday, July 2, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Special Edition: the best news day since the Pandemic. All the hot takes and headlines are wrong about yesterday's Supreme Court decision. It's all so much bigger and better than anyone imagines.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Clueless, low-information Democrats are wailing that the Judges anointed a Presidential King by creating a three-tier test under which —wait for it— Presidents can be prosecuted for crimes. Democrats are acting like this is a revolutionary improvement of the Presidential position. But that, like nearly everything else partisan Democrats say, is a lie.What was the rule before the Supreme Court issued its decision? Well, before Trump, no president was ever prosecuted for a crime. Not for droning an Iraqi wedding. Not for illegal wars. Not even for jaywalking or running lawn sprinklers on a Tuesday.
Presidential prosecutions never ever happened.
Don’t miss this: before Trump, presidents obviously enjoyed de facto total immunity. The unspoken rule that everyone followed was that nobody can prosecute the President, or even a former President.
During the period the de facto total immunity rule reigned, the Supreme Court never had to address Presidential immunity. There were no cases; that’s how absolute the immunity was. But now that the Court has crafted a de jure (legal) rubric, Presidents who do illegal things can be prosecuted. They can now be prosecuted much more easily, in fact. Just not for nuisance claims, like the creative, trumped-up claims brought against President Trump, such as for notating his check stubs wrong.
Let’s do a little thought experiment. Evidence shows President Obama was involved in the now-discredited Russia Dossier matter, which was used as a false predicate to spy on the Trump campaign for partisan political purposes. Evidence suggests Obama knew the Dossier was fake, purchased by the Clinton campaign. Yesterday’s new 3-tier test provides a clear procedure for prosecuting Obama for those very serious allegations.
In other words, the High Court incinerated de facto Presidential immunity, and replaced it with a clear de jure prosecutorial process. Former and future Presidents susceptible to more serious crimes than Trump’s are now fair game. I even got a very reluctant AI chatbot to agree:
The irony! By bringing all these silly, creative claims against President Trump for keeping a few boxes of “classified documents,” and because his bookkeeper wrote the wrong thing on a check stub, the Supreme Court got an unprecedented opportunity to end forever the silent, implicit protection previously enjoyed by every other previous President. That de facto absolute immunity is gone, never to return.
And now it’s open season on serious crimes committed by Presidents.
If President Trump wins the election, this decision provides exactly the right tool his DOJ needs to prosecute the last twenty years of Presidential malfeasance and abuses of authority. It almost seems like Trump planned it this way. In hindsight, it couldn’t have gone any better for Trump in the big picture. When Trump’s DOJ brings its first charges against Biden and Obama, the media cannot wail about it being “unprecedented.” He’ll just be following the law.
Beyond those long-term benefits for President Trump, the decision also placed a massive granite capstone on out-of-control Presidential authority. All future Presidents, Trump included, must now consider potential criminal liability under the new Trump v. US standard. The new rule will make Presidents much more careful when acting outside their Constitutional authority, like when they mandate vaccine shots or something, just as a random example.
So … it’s not even so much that Trump won. The American People won.
But the good news doesn’t stop there! Justice Thomas’s concurrence slid an assassin’s knife into Trump’s two most dangerous criminal cases.
☕️ DEVASTATING ☙ Tuesday, July 2, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Special Edition: the best news day since the Pandemic. All the hot takes and headlines are wrong about yesterday's Supreme Court decision. It's all so much bigger and better than anyone imagines.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
It’s all bull, of course. The Supreme Court didn’t do away with the separation of powers. It didn’t grant the president new authorities. It didn’t say he can do whatever he wants. It didn’t grant presidents immunity for activities outside their official, constitutionally allowed duties.
It simply articulated what had been understood for the entirety of our nation’s history – that presidents should never be criminally prosecuted for what they did in their official duties, because to say otherwise would let lawfare off the chain and absolutely cripple future presidents.
If the Court had said, sure, go ahead and charge the president with a crime for giving a speech we don’t like, or for a policy that we claim hurt people, it would be a disaster.
What Biden also failed to mention was that the only reason the Court had to put this in writing was precisely because of what he and his fellow Democrats are trying to do in their obsession to stop Trump – namely, criminalize his actions as president.
As an aside, the idea that Biden will “respect the limits of the presidential power” is a joke. This is a guy who has repeatedly bypassed the Supreme Court when it tried to rein him in – and bragged about it.
But, Biden can count on the mainstream press to carry his message for him. We won’t be the least bit surprised to hear pundits start arguing that Biden’s infirmities are a great asset, because he’s too disabled to abuse the supposed “unlimited” power the Supreme Court granted him.
issuesinsights.com
It simply articulated what had been understood for the entirety of our nation’s history – that presidents should never be criminally prosecuted for what they did in their official duties, because to say otherwise would let lawfare off the chain and absolutely cripple future presidents.
If the Court had said, sure, go ahead and charge the president with a crime for giving a speech we don’t like, or for a policy that we claim hurt people, it would be a disaster.
What Biden also failed to mention was that the only reason the Court had to put this in writing was precisely because of what he and his fellow Democrats are trying to do in their obsession to stop Trump – namely, criminalize his actions as president.
As an aside, the idea that Biden will “respect the limits of the presidential power” is a joke. This is a guy who has repeatedly bypassed the Supreme Court when it tried to rein him in – and bragged about it.
But, Biden can count on the mainstream press to carry his message for him. We won’t be the least bit surprised to hear pundits start arguing that Biden’s infirmities are a great asset, because he’s too disabled to abuse the supposed “unlimited” power the Supreme Court granted him.
Did The Supreme Court Just Throw Biden A Lifeline? Joe Thinks So
He was only pretending to be outraged by the Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.
issuesinsights.com
Supreme Court’s Trump immunity ruling is what the body was designed for — unpopular but constitutionally correct
CNN’s Van Jones declared that it was “almost a license to thug, in a way.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) declared: “My stomach turns with fear and anger that our democracy can be so endangered by an out-of-control court” and denounced six justices as “extreme and nakedly partisan hacks — politicians in robes.”
Blumenthal has previously shown greater intestinal fortitude, as when he threatened the justices that they would either rule as Democrats demanded or face “seismic” changes to their court.
Jones warned the justices that “politically it’s bad” for them to rule this way.
The comment captures the misguided analysis of many media outlets. The Supreme Court was designed to be unpopular; to take stands that are politically unpopular but constitutionally correct.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
What GETS me is - how smart people can be colossally stupid.
Sotomayor may not come across as intelligent - but - according to Wiki, she did graduate summa cum laude from Princeton, (although she admits her standardized test scores were below her peers there and she was an affirmative action pick) Graduated from Yale Law School (again admitting that she benefited from affirmative action and had modest grades there).
So - she wasn't a standout scholar - but you still don't make it through Princeton and Yale by being a first class idiot. She is not stupid - and it is hard to believe she is dumb enough to believe her dissent. This decision in NO WAY gives carte blanche to Presidents to do any kind of dastardly deed and her examples - all of them - fail even mild scrutiny under the law.
Nevertheless, her lackeys in the leftie press are repeating it, almost verbatim. REPEATEDLY. Same words.
I have to think she posted those remarks as a kind of sour grapes because her opinion didn't win the day. It was like, ok, so they won, but I'm going to poison the well anyway.
Sotomayor may not come across as intelligent - but - according to Wiki, she did graduate summa cum laude from Princeton, (although she admits her standardized test scores were below her peers there and she was an affirmative action pick) Graduated from Yale Law School (again admitting that she benefited from affirmative action and had modest grades there).
So - she wasn't a standout scholar - but you still don't make it through Princeton and Yale by being a first class idiot. She is not stupid - and it is hard to believe she is dumb enough to believe her dissent. This decision in NO WAY gives carte blanche to Presidents to do any kind of dastardly deed and her examples - all of them - fail even mild scrutiny under the law.
Nevertheless, her lackeys in the leftie press are repeating it, almost verbatim. REPEATEDLY. Same words.
I have to think she posted those remarks as a kind of sour grapes because her opinion didn't win the day. It was like, ok, so they won, but I'm going to poison the well anyway.
Bare-ya-cuda
Well-Known Member
The south will win next time.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
It won't be the south against the north , it will be those with a modicum of morals, common sense,, and Patriotism against the morons of this country.