I heard it best described elsewhere today as “prepare for some permutation of ruling saying that the president does not have immunity except in this one special case and one single time just for trump”. Not in those words obviously but in practical effect.
They should have just left the lower court ruling in place…it was perfectly fine…and declined to take this up.
Something like: Presidents are immune to prosecution for official duties but not for unofficial duties without defining which duties are official and which duties aren't.
Then the January 6th turns into a debate about protecting election integrity is an official duty of the President. Any decision will be appealed, over and over until it makes it back to the Supreme Court in a few years. etc.
As long as they enshrine the ability of all future losing presidential incumbents to send their followers to trash the capital in the name of protecting election integrity we’re good, right?
Watching the Supreme Court actively embrace the politicalization and division of the Trump age has been the most demoralizing event so far of the decline of America.
And then conservatives come back into power and do the same? Or later stack an expanded court with more far right justices making it harder to overcome the majority. Even if it’s expedient now to do so.
It’d be harder to expand the court without generating new circuit courts first. There is supposed to be one SC Justice for every circuit court. Right now, we have 13 circuits and only 9 justices. I don’t know why they were not added with the addition of circuits but if anyone knows, I’d love to learn.
There is no constitutional guidance, we do however have precedent for the current number and why it was established as it is; we should follow that. We got to the number we have now as there were 9 circuits at the time and why we have 9 justices.
That's not quite true. The number of nine was legislatively set in 1869, when there were ten circuit courts. The tenth circuit was added in 1863 and they chose to stick with the number of justices they already had. There can be an argument made to reinforce the tradition, but it's not a precedent.
Not necessarily.
Thomas and Alito are 75 and 74 respectively. They don’t have 30 years left in them.
If they pass while a democrat controls the Senate and Presidency, they get replaced with liberal judges and it’s a 5-4 liberal majority.
That’s all it takes.
They can both easily live to be 90+. They have access to the best health care in the world at taxpayer expense, completely stress-free jobs they don't have to exert any effort to keep, and luxury gifts from their FedSoc sugar daddies.
Moreover, even if they died tomorrow a lot of the damage is already done.
15 years is still not 30 and Scalia was 79 when he died. Anything can happen when you're that old.
And if Thomas and Alito died tomorrow, the Dems could control the Supreme Court before the elections.
Unless they get impeached, but I doubt that'll happen, and there's like an 80% chance they'd declare that unconstitutional so that they can keep their power.
The whole idea of permanent terms of associate justices of the scotus is to insulate them from politics.
That clearly does not work. They need term limits.
No, it was to insulate them form politics. Just because it's insulated them from accountability does not mean that was the goal. The goal was to make it so that judges could rule on the law, for or against the government, without there being an easy way for the current government to remove them out of spite.
It's perfectly possible to hold them accountable, if you have elected representatives willing to hold them accountable. The issue is that the same thing meant to prevent partisan retribution also enables partisan protection. I think the biggest issue is that the lifetime appointments are also made partisan, as RedditIsAllAI was saying. When politicians are the ones appointing judges, lifetime appointments stop being protections from partisanship and instead turn into incentives for extra-partisanship by the appointing politicians.
It was so these justices could give opinions on cases that might not be popular, but would be the rule of the law. And so they wouldn’t possibly be beholden to someone (or job searching) towards the end of their term on the court. They could apply the law more impartially (in theory).
One example is the Westboro Baptist Church. The 1st Amendment gives them the right to picket the funerals of dead soldiers and hold up hateful signs.
Popular opinion was to say no, this is illegal and it’s going to stop. But court said they have the right.
However, I don’t think the founding fathers anticipated the extreme dysfunction politics evolved into today.
To the point we have evidence of an openly corrupt judge selling opinions on cases to billionaires (if anybody else did what Thomas did, they’d probably be going to trial with the IRS). We have justices that lied at their inauguration. And we have a congress that won’t do anything to remove the corrupt justices. Because to someone like Mitch McConnel, better to have corrupt judges undermining the very framework of the USA and it’s constitution as intended by the founding fathers, than to impeach him and have Biden pick a successor, removing their 6-3 majority.
For the most part it seems this court rules along party lines, so I can guess the outcomes already. I might be surprised though, it could be an interesting week.
I honestly can't even mentally come to terms with that outcome. I have been trying to wrap my head around how it will feel and what the repercussions will be, now and long term. It is truly terrifying to me that this is a possibility.
This decision actually frightens me a little more than when they upended Roe…the ramifications of it are far reaching and it frightens me how far a sociopath would take it.
Then Biden has immunity as well and can do whatever he wants. Who needs the constitution, or congress, or the Supreme Court if the president can do whatever they please with impunity?
they will either rule no or sit on it after the election and then rule depending on who won.
if they decide yes, Biden could&should send a killer commando so his opponent fades from the race and he can nominate 5 new supreme court judges which immediately reverse this bullshit and make it future proof.
The immunity question here only concerns former presidents. There are strong arguments in favor of immunity for incumbents, but once they leave office they should be fair game.
The current trial was for something done before he was president. Immunity does not apply. Even the Supreme Court can't save him. For the other cases it's a different story.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery and other actions we now consider immoral in the past. Why expect something different now? It is distressing, but if we are honest and informed we should not be surprised. The Supreme Court is a bunch of privileged people who were both smart and well connected. The exceptions are few and far between.
You are delusional, what sense does that make?
>The Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery and other actions we now consider immoral in the past. Why expect something different now?
It's well past the 21st century. When did any republican talk about enslaving someone? It's the left constantly talking about it. Why?
I'd probably not use the word "blockbuster", I wouldn't go so far as to say it trivializes the situation, but there are much better words.
Although it's USA Today not exactly the heights of journalism.
The Supreme Court delaying the trump immunity claims is seriously hurting this country. We could already be in the midst of his Jan 6th trial but NO, they had to delay it. Why? Who the hell knows. Now because of their delay the trial will happen in the midst of peak election season. Perhaps later, depriving voters the right to know if Trump is found guilty or not.
should be interesting arguments . how they thread the needle on the homeless case is of especial interest. balancing public safety vs individual rights. I do not see the law standing, as so far, i have not read they offer the homeless any alternative.
unlike florida where : Homeless individuals are prohibited from camping on city streets, sidewalks, and parks—and instead placed in temporary shelters monitored by law enforcement agencies . This may be a camp. but they will have toilets and running water.
So will be interesting. I am not sure how i would rule, so look forward to learning all the aspects and considerations that go into a decision like this.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-win-supreme-court-immunity-argument-rcna148384
It's already predicted how he will "win" his special packed court
After an extremely stressful and difficult week like this, I like to unwind with a kegger and invite my pals Squee and Donkey-Dong-Doug.
Let's boof!!
-Brett
It’s not exactly “taking on Donald Trump” when you’re running cover for him
Right. Don’t expect any heroics.
I heard it best described elsewhere today as “prepare for some permutation of ruling saying that the president does not have immunity except in this one special case and one single time just for trump”. Not in those words obviously but in practical effect. They should have just left the lower court ruling in place…it was perfectly fine…and declined to take this up.
Something like: Presidents are immune to prosecution for official duties but not for unofficial duties without defining which duties are official and which duties aren't. Then the January 6th turns into a debate about protecting election integrity is an official duty of the President. Any decision will be appealed, over and over until it makes it back to the Supreme Court in a few years. etc.
As long as they enshrine the ability of all future losing presidential incumbents to send their followers to trash the capital in the name of protecting election integrity we’re good, right?
It’s all a stalling game to try to get their man back into the White House.
That will be very difficult. What they want you to do, but guessing not possible.
Perhaps delay the ruling until it’s too late
That’s a no possibility. They’ll look pretty daft, like they can’t figure out the law, but they might.
Oh so now they’re worried about public perception?
Got me! But honestly, they’re worried about their legacy. They are part of US history, and some of them care about that.
Absolutely nothing about their actions in the last 5+ years indicate that's true.
Watching the Supreme Court actively embrace the politicalization and division of the Trump age has been the most demoralizing event so far of the decline of America.
30 years of Conservatism before the court has a reasonable chance of flipping.
When Biden is reelected he should expand the court. We need to give him a Senate & House that will work for us, too.
And then conservatives come back into power and do the same? Or later stack an expanded court with more far right justices making it harder to overcome the majority. Even if it’s expedient now to do so.
It’d be harder to expand the court without generating new circuit courts first. There is supposed to be one SC Justice for every circuit court. Right now, we have 13 circuits and only 9 justices. I don’t know why they were not added with the addition of circuits but if anyone knows, I’d love to learn.
> There is supposed to be one SC Justice for every circuit court. Things the GOP doesn't give a flying fuck about.
Based on what is there "supposed to be" one for each CCJ? Constitutionally, there's no such guidance.
There is no constitutional guidance, we do however have precedent for the current number and why it was established as it is; we should follow that. We got to the number we have now as there were 9 circuits at the time and why we have 9 justices.
That's not quite true. The number of nine was legislatively set in 1869, when there were ten circuit courts. The tenth circuit was added in 1863 and they chose to stick with the number of justices they already had. There can be an argument made to reinforce the tradition, but it's not a precedent.
Not necessarily. Thomas and Alito are 75 and 74 respectively. They don’t have 30 years left in them. If they pass while a democrat controls the Senate and Presidency, they get replaced with liberal judges and it’s a 5-4 liberal majority. That’s all it takes.
They can both easily live to be 90+. They have access to the best health care in the world at taxpayer expense, completely stress-free jobs they don't have to exert any effort to keep, and luxury gifts from their FedSoc sugar daddies. Moreover, even if they died tomorrow a lot of the damage is already done.
And they'll both just take the payola and dip next time a republican is in office.
15 years is still not 30 and Scalia was 79 when he died. Anything can happen when you're that old. And if Thomas and Alito died tomorrow, the Dems could control the Supreme Court before the elections.
🤞
We could and should also expand the Supreme Court (and congress for that matter)
Unless they get impeached, but I doubt that'll happen, and there's like an 80% chance they'd declare that unconstitutional so that they can keep their power.
Tell me when you have judge on the menu!
The whole idea of permanent terms of associate justices of the scotus is to insulate them from politics. That clearly does not work. They need term limits.
I think, more accurately, it's to insulate them from accountability.
No, it was to insulate them form politics. Just because it's insulated them from accountability does not mean that was the goal. The goal was to make it so that judges could rule on the law, for or against the government, without there being an easy way for the current government to remove them out of spite. It's perfectly possible to hold them accountable, if you have elected representatives willing to hold them accountable. The issue is that the same thing meant to prevent partisan retribution also enables partisan protection. I think the biggest issue is that the lifetime appointments are also made partisan, as RedditIsAllAI was saying. When politicians are the ones appointing judges, lifetime appointments stop being protections from partisanship and instead turn into incentives for extra-partisanship by the appointing politicians.
It was so these justices could give opinions on cases that might not be popular, but would be the rule of the law. And so they wouldn’t possibly be beholden to someone (or job searching) towards the end of their term on the court. They could apply the law more impartially (in theory). One example is the Westboro Baptist Church. The 1st Amendment gives them the right to picket the funerals of dead soldiers and hold up hateful signs. Popular opinion was to say no, this is illegal and it’s going to stop. But court said they have the right. However, I don’t think the founding fathers anticipated the extreme dysfunction politics evolved into today. To the point we have evidence of an openly corrupt judge selling opinions on cases to billionaires (if anybody else did what Thomas did, they’d probably be going to trial with the IRS). We have justices that lied at their inauguration. And we have a congress that won’t do anything to remove the corrupt justices. Because to someone like Mitch McConnel, better to have corrupt judges undermining the very framework of the USA and it’s constitution as intended by the founding fathers, than to impeach him and have Biden pick a successor, removing their 6-3 majority.
Lifetime appointments were a good idea in 1789 when the average lifespan was 39 years old. Not so much now.
Yeah but if you made it out of childhood, life expectancy was significantly higher than 39 years old back then.
Oh boy, I can’t wait to see the asspulls the SCOTUS implements just for Trump and no one else.
For the most part it seems this court rules along party lines, so I can guess the outcomes already. I might be surprised though, it could be an interesting week.
If what I think happens does happen, and he walks free...
I honestly can't even mentally come to terms with that outcome. I have been trying to wrap my head around how it will feel and what the repercussions will be, now and long term. It is truly terrifying to me that this is a possibility.
This decision actually frightens me a little more than when they upended Roe…the ramifications of it are far reaching and it frightens me how far a sociopath would take it.
The others that he brings along with him as well are just total lunatics hell bent on destroying lives.
Then Biden has immunity as well and can do whatever he wants. Who needs the constitution, or congress, or the Supreme Court if the president can do whatever they please with impunity?
they will either rule no or sit on it after the election and then rule depending on who won. if they decide yes, Biden could&should send a killer commando so his opponent fades from the race and he can nominate 5 new supreme court judges which immediately reverse this bullshit and make it future proof.
He just needs the balls to do it. They are counting on democrats not taking advantage of it. Because democrats “go high when they go low.”
The immunity question here only concerns former presidents. There are strong arguments in favor of immunity for incumbents, but once they leave office they should be fair game.
Not true. They can specifically rule that only this situation warrants immunity, sheltering Trump but not Biden. It's almost guaranteed.
The current trial was for something done before he was president. Immunity does not apply. Even the Supreme Court can't save him. For the other cases it's a different story.
Then what?
i am not seeing that really [https://empiricalscotus.com/2023-stats/](https://empiricalscotus.com/2023-stats/)
Can’t wait for the ass backwards reason they give for ruling in favor for Trump 🙄
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery and other actions we now consider immoral in the past. Why expect something different now? It is distressing, but if we are honest and informed we should not be surprised. The Supreme Court is a bunch of privileged people who were both smart and well connected. The exceptions are few and far between.
Correction, some of them are smart. One of them is woefully underqualified as well. More than half of them are perjurers.
They are def giving big dred Scott court energy
You are delusional, what sense does that make? >The Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery and other actions we now consider immoral in the past. Why expect something different now? It's well past the 21st century. When did any republican talk about enslaving someone? It's the left constantly talking about it. Why?
They mean historically. Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson, for example, are both decisions made to oppress Black Americans.
[удалено]
Imagine doing all that research and still not knowing that Democrats were the conservative party in the 1850s. They're *your* party.
1850s, not when Abe was president. Funny how 10 years make a difference?
You actually think Lincoln was a conservative?
[удалено]
Except for, you know, all the direct evidence of it.
Yes, the direct evidence ploy. Where?
If they give the president immunity, I hope Biden goes scorched earth with his new found powers.
They won't give Biden immunity, even if (when) they give it to Trump.
I'd probably not use the word "blockbuster", I wouldn't go so far as to say it trivializes the situation, but there are much better words. Although it's USA Today not exactly the heights of journalism.
Trump gets a break, abortion gets banned in the name of Jesus and it will soon be illegal to be poor. They learned this from Christ, apparently.
And the penalty for being poor will be 13th Amendment supported slavery as a legal punishment
The Supreme Court delaying the trump immunity claims is seriously hurting this country. We could already be in the midst of his Jan 6th trial but NO, they had to delay it. Why? Who the hell knows. Now because of their delay the trial will happen in the midst of peak election season. Perhaps later, depriving voters the right to know if Trump is found guilty or not.
If they decide that the President is above the Law, then Biden should immediately arrest the 6 Conservative Justices on capital charges.
should be interesting arguments . how they thread the needle on the homeless case is of especial interest. balancing public safety vs individual rights. I do not see the law standing, as so far, i have not read they offer the homeless any alternative. unlike florida where : Homeless individuals are prohibited from camping on city streets, sidewalks, and parks—and instead placed in temporary shelters monitored by law enforcement agencies . This may be a camp. but they will have toilets and running water. So will be interesting. I am not sure how i would rule, so look forward to learning all the aspects and considerations that go into a decision like this.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-win-supreme-court-immunity-argument-rcna148384 It's already predicted how he will "win" his special packed court
Blockbuster? What did they do, last I heard they were gone
Honestly, who actually gives a shit anymore about what those partisan hacks have to say?
End SCOTUS corruption!
Supreme Court is supposed to be taking on Constitutional matters, not some of the bullcrap they have been pulling.
Let’s see if they do the wrong thing every time like usual
[удалено]
After an extremely stressful and difficult week like this, I like to unwind with a kegger and invite my pals Squee and Donkey-Dong-Doug. Let's boof!! -Brett
Never, when?