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.