IMMUNITY and SCOTUS

[blastula]

Fly your freak flag ya freaks. .

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

They don't need to rule on immunity at all. But they did accept the case. So them complaining about resolution when they took the damn case up in the first place is disingenuous.

Yup. It is blindingly obvious that only the intent to litigate from the bench was driving that corrupt decision.

And the worst part was that the Alt-Right justices weren't even discussing Trump.

Which is THEIR FUCKING JOB.
He is the plaintiff asking for immunity in this specific case. If the Court was not entirely disingenuous in taking up the case, they could decide it in an afternoon;

Q: does trump have immunity from the charges against him?

That is the only question before them.

A: yes or no
Case concluded.

But noooo … they gotta protect their benefactors.

Well, technically they could say "these charges yes, those charges no" which is a more expansive answer than yours. I think you'd still be very unsatisfied and call the court corrupt and right-wing if they let anything be considered immune.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They don't need to rule on immunity at all. But they did accept the case. So them complaining about resolution when they took the damn case up in the first place is disingenuous.

Yup. It is blindingly obvious that only the intent to litigate from the bench was driving that corrupt decision.

And the worst part was that the Alt-Right justices weren't even discussing Trump.

Which is THEIR FUCKING JOB.
He is the plaintiff asking for immunity in this specific case. If the Court was not entirely disingenuous in taking up the case, they could decide it in an afternoon;

Q: does trump have immunity from the charges against him?

That is the only question before them.

A: yes or no
Case concluded.

But noooo … they gotta protect their benefactors.

Well, technically they could say "these charges yes, those charges no" which is a more expansive answer than yours.

SCOTUS in general hates setting standards, especially if it isn't even necessary, except they decided to take this case. The easiest option would be to say the Appealate Court didn't screw up, but in general, the 6-3 alt-right majority is going to send this back down to the Appellate Court so they can tighten up the limits on the earlier ruling... because what about the weremoles?!

I think you'd still be very unsatisfied and call the court corrupt and right-wing if they let anything be considered immune.

The question wasn't how immune a President is, but whether the acts specifically called into question fall into a category of legitimate Presidential Acts which would very likely be considered immune. Trump's lawyer contested only some of the acts were within Trump's capacity as President. The alt-right judges fled from that question as fast as possible. They explicitly indicated they didn't want to discuss it, it was that black and white.

The alt-right on the bench were going out of their way to make this a broader issue. Because unless we discuss the weremoles, any President could be sued and there would be no protections for that poor fellow, as if any case against a former President isn't going to SCOTUS, their suggestion was preposterous. The alt-right that day were probably the most disingenuous partisan hacks that courtroom had ever witnessed SCOTUS justices to be.

 

[Elixir]

Well, technically they could say "these charges yes, those charges no" which is a more expansive answer than yours.

Yeah … Considering them at a rate of a month per charge, it can all be considered by the time King Donald II dies of old age.

 

[marc]

Their dilemma is they can't give Trump immunity without it also applying to Biden, which would undercut so much of their phony outrage.

They have to stall until after the election, then either give a non-judgement response, or decide bases on who wins.

 

[Elixir]

SCOTUS in general hates setting standards,

Yabut you can bet they will this time if the lower court doesn’t set the standard they want.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

SCOTUS in general hates setting standards,

Yabut you can bet they will this time if the lower court doesn’t set the standard they want.

In the immunity case they whined about how hard it'd, but in the Social Media, they said the lower courts weren't detailed enough. The Roberts Court is fucked up.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

SCOTUS in general hates setting standards,

Yabut you can bet they will this time if the lower court doesn’t set the standard they want.

Exactly. And by the time the standard/rule is set, it will have been determined who the next POTUS is going to be.

If it's Trump, then POTUS will have immunity from all criminal actions.

If it's Biden then there will be a detailed analysis and guardrails set.

As things stand today, it appears that Biden can begin exercising "tests" for this new ruling; and he should. By and large, Biden follows the rules. What he and his staff need to consider is whether it's time to deviate from the rules. It seems to boil down to whether Biden is willing to be a modern American martyr or if he'll allow the country to fall to an incompetent tyrant supported by very capable religious authoritarians.

Another way to put it is this: do we want Biden as a temporary dictator, or Trump and his successors as permanent ones?

The U.S. and therefore the rest of the world changed today. For the time being, Biden has a horrible decision to have to make, but he needs to make it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

SCOTUS in general hates setting standards,

Yabut you can bet they will this time if the lower court doesn’t set the standard they want.

Exactly. And by the time the standard/rule is set, it will have been determined who the next POTUS is going to be.

If it's Trump, then POTUS will have immunity from all criminal actions.

If it's Biden then there will be a detailed analysis and guardrails set.

As things stand today, it appears that Biden can begin exercising "tests" for this new ruling; and he should. By and large, Biden follows the rules. What he and his staff need to consider is whether it's time to deviate from the rules. It seems to boil down to whether Biden is willing to be a modern American martyr or if he'll allow the country to fall to an incompetent tyrant supported by very capable religious authoritarians.

Another way to put it is this: do we want Biden as a temporary dictator, or Trump and his successors as permanent ones?

Neither of those options are acceptable.

One angle is that Biden can say the Supreme Court said regardless of legality, anything I were to say to the AG would be immune. I don't believe any person, including myself, should have that level of unchecked power.

The U.S. and therefore the rest of the world changed today. For the time being, Biden has a horrible decision to have to make, but he needs to make it.

Absolutely not!

 

[SLD]

It’s a sad day in our history. That’s all I can say. But I’m not surprised.

 

[Elixir]

Joe should just tell the press that he hopes this immunity thing gets cleared up real quick because he has some official acts to consider. {wink wink}

 

[Colonel Sanders]

SCOTUS in general hates setting standards,

Yabut you can bet they will this time if the lower court doesn’t set the standard they want.

Exactly. And by the time the standard/rule is set, it will have been determined who the next POTUS is going to be.

If it's Trump, then POTUS will have immunity from all criminal actions.

If it's Biden then there will be a detailed analysis and guardrails set.

As things stand today, it appears that Biden can begin exercising "tests" for this new ruling; and he should. By and large, Biden follows the rules. What he and his staff need to consider is whether it's time to deviate from the rules. It seems to boil down to whether Biden is willing to be a modern American martyr or if he'll allow the country to fall to an incompetent tyrant supported by very capable religious authoritarians.

Another way to put it is this: do we want Biden as a temporary dictator, or Trump and his successors as permanent ones?

Neither of those options are acceptable.

One angle is that Biden can say the Supreme Court said regardless of legality, anything I were to say to the AG would be immune. I don't believe any person, including myself, should have that level of unchecked power.

The U.S. and therefore the rest of the world changed today. For the time being, Biden has a horrible decision to have to make, but he needs to make it.

Absolutely not!

It's not a matter of "acceptable." It's a matter of the need to take dramatic action before it's too late. Our system has been beaten and abused by the utter abandonment of norms and respect for the rule of law. What we've been presented with is a perfect formula for excising meaningful democracy and human rights. But the solution is to just hope that things turn out okay?

Fuck that.

It's like going into a boxing match and just shrugging your shoulders if your opponent brings an AR-15. I am so fed up with all these ineffective, milquetoast responses to what MAGA has done.

They have promised the imprisonment of political enemies. They have promised to do away with multiple civil rights. They have promised to persecute the political opposition.

If Biden doesn't act, I'm voting R in November. If the left is going to be this fucking weak and spineless, then screw it, I have a family to worry about and the voting roles will reflect the decisions I made.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

if Biden could prevent great harm by taking violent action against his political opponents under this new immunity theory, should he?

I keep envisioning the certification of an election that Trump/Putin won. Kami saying “my duty as VP is to refuse certification of a traitor” (in more appropriate words of course) and goes on to declare Biden the winner. What does Trump say then? Will SCOTUS be okay with Biden locking him up or having him … uh. … neutralized? Can we litigate it for a decade or two, so Sleepy Joe can die a free man?

I be am SO disgusted with these authoritarians and their enablers, I am actually hoping someone … maybe some terminally ill person… will decide to take one for the team, and neutralize the immediate threat.

My thinking on this is pretty grim and ruthless, so I'll spare details, but I think Biden would need to take action prior to then.

We're on the precipice. If Trump regains the White House, this nation is fucked. The Evangelicals will put up with Trump for however long and then they'll be running the show. We'll be a modern Christian fundamentalist state--something akin the Christian version of Iran. Our leaders will just be wearing different attire.

I mean I already knew that though with or without this ruling. Either way he was going to try to do as much as he can to hold onto power regardless of what it was.

 

[pood]

Dropped this at another board. Here, too.

In his 1858 debates with Stephen A. Douglas, Abe Lincoln charged that there was a conspiracy involving Douglas, President Buchanan, the Democratic Party and the Supreme Court to spread slavery nationwide. Lincoln cited the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which infamously held that blacks had no rights at all, struck down the Missouri Compromise, and ruled that territories could not bar slavery. Lincoln charged that the putative conspirators were laying the groundwork for a second Dred Scott decision that would bar states from prohibiting slavery. Lincoln cited Douglas’s role in writing the Kansas-Nebraska act, which had a clause disavowing any intent to legislate slavery into any territory or state, or to exclude it therefrom. That curious “or to exclude it” got Lincoln’s antennae quivering, quite correctly I suspect. There was probably in fact such a conspiracy, and it was only aborted by the blood Civil war and by Lincoln himself.

The Dred Scott decision is widely considered the worst in American history, and today’s decision will rank up there, if there are any future historians to discuss these matters. I think there is a conspiracy among the MAGAts, the Supreme Court, and of course Donald Trump himself to install Trump as a dictator and end what is left of democracy in this country. These are deeply perilous times, with no Lincoln on the horizon. It really could be that another Civil War is in the offing.

Eight years ago, after Trump’s victory, I advocated blue state secession. If Trump wins, that’s the last viable option to preserve some semblance of democracy.

 

[marc]

Their dilemma is they can't give Trump immunity without it also applying to Biden, which would undercut so much of their phony outrage.

They have to stall until after the election, then either give a non-judgement response, or decide bases on who wins.

Looks like I was wrong. Guess they are relying on trial delay tactics, and creative interpretations of “official acts” depending on which president it is referring to

 

[Ford]

Their dilemma is they can't give Trump immunity without it also applying to Biden, which would undercut so much of their phony outrage.

They have to stall until after the election, then either give a non-judgement response, or decide bases on who wins.

Looks like I was wrong. Guess they are relying on trial delay tactics, and creative interpretations of “official acts” depending on which president it is referring to

And if Trump manages to win, he will act as if he won full immunity for everything. If he is able to implement Project 2025, the executive branch becomes an arm of the Trump organization, and will be filled with loyalists, sycophants, and grifters. Since he pretty clearly has the judicial branch, all he would need is the GOP to retain control of the House and win the Senate. He would be - as he said - a dictator on day one. And then on day two. And every day thereafter.

I hear Costa Rica is nice. Low cost of living, nice weather, lots of American expats already living there. Perhaps Canada? I was just talking to my mom about this yesterday before the decision was handed down, and she had an idea. Throw everything we can fit into the boat and head across the river to the Canadian side. If I sold my house, I'd have enough to live abroad for years while America descends into fascism. Which reminds me...I need to renew my passport.

 

[ZiprHead]

And so it begins...

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Eight years ago, after Trump’s victory, I advocated blue state secession. If Trump wins, that’s the last viable option to preserve some semblance of democracy.

I'd love to see California, Washington, and Oregon secede. Success would indeed be viable.

The problem is how. MAGA America wouldn't just let it happen. At any one time there are approximately 160,000 members of the military stationed in California. From San Diego to Seattle the U.S. Navy and Marines have total control of shipping lanes.

Off the top of my head I can think of 5 air force bases, most of which could be ready in a matter of hours.

The army desert warfare center is stationed in Barstow. When I was in the army and national guard, we'd go there to train. The point is that the army also has heavy equipment in large numbers here too.

Etc.

In short, secession itself isn't a viable option. It would give them an excuse to begin the murdering en masse and clamp down hard afterwards.

 

[pood]

Lincoln opposed secession, and after the Civil War a reconstituted Supreme Court ruled that secession was unconstitutional. However, Lincoln also argued that the union was in the nature of a contract — one side could not legally repudiate it, but both sides could agree to dissolve it. The red states and blue states on this scenario could peacefully separate. I think it’s time. I’m tired of living in a nation run by stumpjumpers, yahoos, bunkum artists, seditionists, hillbillies, Jesus fellaters and suchlike trash.

 

[Cognoscenti324]

Is anyone else as embarrassed as I am by the four idiots, led by Alito, who have made a circus out of trying to accomodate Trump?
The so-called "immunity question" is not an immunity question AFAICS, it's a platform for delaying the prosecution of a treasonous authoritarian wannabe.
Justice Ketanji Jackson observed quite simply that the emperor has no clothes. While they wrangle on about the dangers of Presidents past present and future having or NOT having immunity from prosecution, it seems forgotten that we have had 46 presidents, none of whom had any special immunity because they didn't need it. Justice Jackson brought it back down to earth like the little girl observing that the emperor is butt naked, simply saying
"why don't we decide, yes or no, whether the plaintiff has immunity in this case?"

There is absolutely no reason to take a foray into future hypotheticals that have never been an issue for 46 presidencies.
The honest answer is, that if they did their job - which is ONLY to decide whether Trump does or does not have immunity in this case - Trump would have no immunity because there is no excuse for giving him any such immunity. The cases against him would go to trial before the election and he would lose. So they have reduced the Supreme Court of The United States to a charade, performing a delay exercise to assist a demented, treasonous gasbag in his effort to destroy American Democracy.

Thoughts?

I think SCOTUS is awesome! I’m fervently hoping that Biden is meeting with the CIA right now to use this new constitutional shield to eliminate the biggest threat to our country since Bin Laden….