• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

A little something something for defenders of democracy

Angry Floof

Angry Floof

Tricksy Leftits
Staff member
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
15,184
Location
Sector 001
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Today is much so good. So happy I has the dumbs.

Today's immunity ruling is as stunning as it was expected. It's a historical political/legal event that will be studied and taught from for generations to come. Again, not at all a surprise, but massively historical nonetheless in holding future corrupt presidents in check and accountable. The chance that scotus would essentially render itself powerless to future presidents is negligible at best so they probably won't entertain it. The asinine immunity plea is done. I guess the SC could decide to take it for the sheer purpose of etching some further detail of commentary into history (no idea what the chances could be, but they could be forgiven if they did that) but honestly, if you think there's anything they could usefully add to the opinion or a reason they'd hear it and rule for immunity, I'd be interested in hearing what.

And this is just the beginning. I can't overstate how strong and positive the ruling is for democracy. Even if there are still other gaping holes in protection against fascism, this ruling is significant for the US and arguably the world.

But at the same time, the ruling will be a point of ridiculousness for generations to come, the same way that we currently joke about packaging with stuff like "don't put this bleach in your butt" printed on it. Detergent pods are the mascots of the Trump era.

***BONUS SCHADENFREUDE***
Jeffrey Clark's petition in DC to stay his license forfeiture pending trial was denied. :)
 
ideologyhunter said:
If Scotus has any integrity left whatever, they will refuse to take this one on appeal. It would do them a world of good to let it stand. We'll see what integrity (and good common sense) is left over there.
Click to expand...
All true, except I don't even think that's a driving factor here. They would literally be signing away their own authority and place among the Powers. If integrity was an issue for them before the immunity plea was really on their radar, it has since become a distant second in terms of their motivation for shooting down immunity. Also it's plainly a no-brainer, which they would know.
 
I hear you—but part of me would like it to go to SCOTUS if and only if we knew they’d uphold the lower court’s correct decision. Only because SCOTUS is the final authority.

But we have too many dumbasses/traitors on the court to risk it.
 
People with lifetime appointments are unlikely to open the door for someone in the future to shoot them with impunity.
 
If SCOTUS takes the case simply to affirm it (which some are suggesting would make it a stronger and definitive precedent) they would effectively give Trump the delay he wants. That is...unless they got it done faster than they typically take, the election case in 2000 excepted. Trump believes that if he wins in November, he can quickly postpone all court cases for 4 years (or however long his reich terms lasts.)
 
Toni said:
I hear you—but part of me would like it to go to SCOTUS if and only if we knew they’d uphold the lower court’s correct decision. Only because SCOTUS is the final authority.
Click to expand...

I might be misunderstanding you, but scotus doesn't work that way. They decide if they'll take it and they decide if they uphold it. I just don't think they'll want to do either.
Toni said:
But we have too many dumbasses/traitors on the court to risk it.
Click to expand...
In Roe, that's absolutely and obviously true. For THIS? Not a factor. There's no way they're going to hand their own role in government over to any President. Party influence with respect to something that serves as the one and only right wing talking point that makes them feel like their depraved ideology is humane? Oh, hell, yes, they're happy to be dumbasses/traitors. But in regard to their own existence? Self preservation renders ideological identity meaningless. Much like Christians don't holler for Jesus when they're facing death. They holler for mama.
 
ideologyhunter said:
If SCOTUS takes the case simply to affirm it (which some are suggesting would make it a stronger and definitive precedent) they would effectively give Trump the delay he wants. That is...unless they got it done faster than they typically take, the election case in 2000 excepted. Trump believes that if he wins in November, he can quickly postpone all court cases for 4 years (or however long his reich terms lasts.)
Click to expand...
If it's my comment that you're referring to, I wasn't suggesting it would be a good thing for the strength of the previous court's ruling but that the DC court's opinion was so clear and airtight that the SC wouldn't have anything to add to it. Even if they recognize the historical importance, and they do to be sure, they wouldn't even add anything for vanity's sake in this opportunity to etch their own words into history in a big way. And we know how vain they can be.

I was just making the point that there's no good reason to take it even if they could be forgiven if they chose the vanity route. It's me saying that it seems so obviously airtight that they will see no need to do anything with it, not even bothering with the ego route that at least some of them could be susceptible to. :biggrina:

And I agree that touching it would only delay, which is good for Trump, though I'm not sure how good.
 
Actually no, I wasn't responding to your post specifically. I found your comments to be sharp. I went back to MSNBC and heard some talking heads stating that SCOTUS can take a case to affirm, not only to contest. Then I put in my 2nd post.
 
ideologyhunter said:
Actually no, I wasn't responding to your post specifically. I found your comments to be sharp. I went back to MSNBC and heard some talking heads stating that SCOTUS can take a case to affirm, not only to contest. Then I put in my 2nd post.
Click to expand...
Ah, gotcha. Thanks.
 
Angry Floof said:
Toni said:
I hear you—but part of me would like it to go to SCOTUS if and only if we knew they’d uphold the lower court’s correct decision. Only because SCOTUS is the final authority.
Click to expand...

I might be misunderstanding you, but scotus doesn't work that way. They decide if they'll take it and they decide if they uphold it. I just don't think they'll want to do either.
Toni said:
But we have too many dumbasses/traitors on the court to risk it.
Click to expand...
In Roe, that's absolutely and obviously true. For THIS? Not a factor. There's no way they're going to hand their own role in government over to any President. Party influence with respect to something that serves as the one and only right wing talking point that makes them feel like their depraved ideology is humane? Oh, hell, yes, they're happy to be dumbasses/traitors. But in regard to their own existence? Self preservation renders ideological identity meaningless. Much like Christians don't holler for Jesus when they're facing death. They holler for mama.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS decides which cases they will take.

SCOTUS makes its ruling.

That ruling becomes the law of the land—until such time as they decide to overrule themselves (different justices probably but with Alito and Thomas and ACB???

I DO think you have an excellent point, that they are unlikely to give away their power to any POTUS. I actually feel much better. Thanks.
 
Toni said:
Angry Floof said:
Toni said:
I hear you—but part of me would like it to go to SCOTUS if and only if we knew they’d uphold the lower court’s correct decision. Only because SCOTUS is the final authority.
Click to expand...

I might be misunderstanding you, but scotus doesn't work that way. They decide if they'll take it and they decide if they uphold it. I just don't think they'll want to do either.
Toni said:
But we have too many dumbasses/traitors on the court to risk it.
Click to expand...
In Roe, that's absolutely and obviously true. For THIS? Not a factor. There's no way they're going to hand their own role in government over to any President. Party influence with respect to something that serves as the one and only right wing talking point that makes them feel like their depraved ideology is humane? Oh, hell, yes, they're happy to be dumbasses/traitors. But in regard to their own existence? Self preservation renders ideological identity meaningless. Much like Christians don't holler for Jesus when they're facing death. They holler for mama.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS decides which cases they will take.

SCOTUS makes its ruling.

That ruling becomes the law of the land—until such time as they decide to overrule themselves (different justices probably but with Alito and Thomas and ACB???
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant if they are petitioned to hear a case.

Edit: but yes, they are the final ruling on matters of constitutionality of a lower case ruling. Constitutional amendments are how you can overrule the SC, and that's super hard.

Edit 2: Oh, and yes, the SC an overrule itself any time it wants, like the current one did with Roe. I don't know how often that happens, though, or how often it might be because of cult brain worms like with Roe or some saner reason.
Toni said:
I DO think you have an excellent point, that they are unlikely to give away their power to any POTUS. I actually feel much better. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Good. We all deserve to feel better and have a little hope these days. Fascists are fucking exhausting! Which is why exhausting opposition is one of their favorite strategeries.
 
Last edited:
The corrupt religious zealot SC decided to take up the case. Why? Who fucking knows. I hope it's just one of the narcissists on the court just wanting to add their own voice to an historic case, maybe wanting their name highlighted. I hope that's all it is. :/ I expect it's really about delaying Trump's big fat trial.
 
Angry Floof said:
The corrupt religious zealot SC decided to take up the case. Why? Who fucking knows. I hope it's just one of the narcissists on the court just wanting to add their own voice to an historic case, maybe wanting their name highlighted. I hope that's all it is. :/ I expect it's really about delaying Trump's big fat trial.
Click to expand...
Considering that they won’t even hear arguments until late April it certainly feels like a delay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom