Something’s Rotten About the Justices Taking So Long on Trump’s Immunity Case

H

Hume

Verified User
For those looking for the hidden hand of politics in what the Supreme Court does, there’s plenty of reason for suspicion on Donald Trump’s as-yet-decided immunity case given its urgency. There are, of course, explanations that have nothing to do with politics for why a ruling still hasn’t been issued. But the reasons to think something is rotten at the court are impossible to ignore.

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | Something’s Rotten About the Justices Taking So Long on Trump’s Immunity Case

It shouldn’t take so long for the justices to consider an outlandish claim.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
It is a deposit bet they are going to bounce it back to the lower courts for further definitions to insure Trump can’t face trial prior to November

Interesting how they supposedly follow Originalism, where here there is zero mention of Presidential immunity in the Constitution nor writings of the Founding Fathers, a variable they have shelved here. And Textualism, which scribes they are suppose to deal with what is infront of them now and not concern themselves with supposed effect on the future they expressed in their questions

What is going to be interesting is the gun case also waiting their decision, if one guilty of spousal abuse should be allowed to access a gun. Based on all their prior gun decisions it should be a no brained for them, but they know if they rule yes it could cost Trump some suburban women vote, so don’t be surprised if they vote yes guns can be restricted under those circumstances
 
archives said:
It is a deposit bet they are going to bounce it back to the lower courts for further definitions to insure Trump can’t face trial prior to November

Interesting how they supposedly follow Originalism, where here there is zero mention of Presidential immunity in the Constitution nor writings of the Founding Fathers, a variable they have shelved here. And Textualism, which scribes they are suppose to deal with what is infront of them now and not concern themselves with supposed effect on the future they expressed in their questions
Click to expand...
This should never have reached the Supreme Court.
The idea the President can legally attempt a violent coup is absurd.
 
I have no problem with the SC taking this case and also taking their time to rule on it and even the expansionist view, it seems clear they will take which is to expand this case to a major question of putting definition to what 'are' and 'are not' Presidential Acts that can and cannot be prosecuted.

Where i do take issue is that Jack Smith foresaw all this back in December when it was first presented to the SC, and he said to them 'if you are inclined to take this case, then take it now and lets skip the Colorado SC if you are going to ignore their ruling as you believe this is an issue the SC alone must decide'.

The SC absolutely should have recognized that on any question defining Presidential Immunity limits, it would be them and them only to decide it so by allowing it FIRST to go to the Colorado SC, to then just set aside their ruling, to rule on it anew was a CLEAR choice for maximum delay.

The SC realized Trump would lose on this issue (and he will) and the only way to help him was to give him the delay he is begging for and there is no denying that the SC has given him absolutely every second they can add to this. They will likely drop this ruling on the absolute last day of this session and kick it back to the DC court, for hearings to separate Presidential Acts from Private Acts. Once the DC court rules on that, Trump will again appeal to Colorado SC and the SC, pushing this case well into 2025 before a jury is seated.
 
^^^ had the SC done their job and took the case in Dec as the DoJ asked and did these hearings in January, all these issues would be settled now (if not a month ago) and the actual case would be happening.
 
They should not have taken the case. The idea that the president is immune from prosecution for crimes he commits in office is anathema to the Constitution and the founders. The fact that they took it reveals a danger to the 3 branches. Nixon said , if the president does it, it is legal. Some members of the court accept that. This is about the imperial presidency that Nixon wanted. The American experiment has not been in this much peril since the War of 1812
 
Nordberg said:
They should not have taken the case. The idea that the president is immune from prosecution for crimes he commits in office is anathema to the Constitution and the founders. The fact that they took it reveals a danger to the 3 branches. Nixon said , if the president does it, it is legal. Some members of the court accept that. This is about the imperial presidency that Nixon wanted. The American experiment has not been in this much peril since the War of 1812
Click to expand...
Agree. Corruption is at the highest levels of government.

I fear President Biden is unable to deal with the situation.
 
Hume said:
For those looking for the hidden hand of politics in what the Supreme Court does, there’s plenty of reason for suspicion on Donald Trump’s as-yet-decided immunity case given its urgency. There are, of course, explanations that have nothing to do with politics for why a ruling still hasn’t been issued. But the reasons to think something is rotten at the court are impossible to ignore.

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | Something’s Rotten About the Justices Taking So Long on Trump’s Immunity Case

It shouldn’t take so long for the justices to consider an outlandish claim.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
Aweeeeeeeeee, are they not lynching Trump fast enough for you???
 
Hume said:
For those looking for the hidden hand of politics in what the Supreme Court does, there’s plenty of reason for suspicion on Donald Trump’s as-yet-decided immunity case given its urgency. There are, of course, explanations that have nothing to do with politics for why a ruling still hasn’t been issued. But the reasons to think something is rotten at the court are impossible to ignore.

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | Something’s Rotten About the Justices Taking So Long on Trump’s Immunity Case

It shouldn’t take so long for the justices to consider an outlandish claim.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
Did you see they have placed fences around the supreme court in advance of giving this decision.
 
Hume said:
No, news to me.
Click to expand...
Oh nm! I'm sorry

AJune 17 Facebook video (direct link, archive link) shows a tall, black, temporary fence wrapping around the building that houses the nation’s highest court.

“Fences going up around the Supreme Court – looks like they know they’re going to be (expletive) some people off in short time,” reads the post’s caption. “Expect SCOTUS opinions this Thursday & Friday.”

Versions of the claim on Instagram received hundreds of likes in less than a day before they were deleted. Similar versions were also shared widely on X, formerly Twitter, including by conservative commentator Benny Johnson, before they were deleted.

More from the Fact-Check Team: How we pick and research claims | Email newsletter | Facebook page

Expand article logo
Continue reading


Our rating: False​

The video is from 2022 and shows the fence constructed in response to protests of the court’s leaked draft opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade.
 
Hume said:
For those looking for the hidden hand of politics in what the Supreme Court does, there’s plenty of reason for suspicion on Donald Trump’s as-yet-decided immunity case given its urgency. There are, of course, explanations that have nothing to do with politics for why a ruling still hasn’t been issued. But the reasons to think something is rotten at the court are impossible to ignore.

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | Something’s Rotten About the Justices Taking So Long on Trump’s Immunity Case

It shouldn’t take so long for the justices to consider an outlandish claim.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
The NY Times????? LMBO
 
Hume said:
The Constitution is vague about violent coups? No.
Click to expand...
No.

But the Constitution says nothing about what is a Presidential Act and what is not, which this SC has chosen to expand this issue to.

Now you can say 'I don't agree with the SC using this case to address that broader question' and i would agree with you but that is not worth a lot when the SC gets to choose how they engage a question.
 
QP! said:
No.

But the Constitution says nothing about what is a Presidential Act and what is not, which this SC has chosen to expand this issue to.

Now you can say 'I don't agree with the SC using this case to address that broader question' and i would agree with you but that is not worth a lot when the SC gets to choose how they engage a question.
Click to expand...
The President cannot commit crimes. The Supreme Court does not agree with that?!
 
Hume said:
The President cannot commit crimes. The Supreme Court does not agree with that?!
Click to expand...
Let me try this again.

It is POSSIBLE a future POTUS may be accused of something that MAY or MAY NOT be a crime and is not as black and white as this is. For instance, as is often said, if a POTUS orders a drone strike that ends up killing an American citizen.

Currently there is NOTHING that says what acts CAN and CANNOT be cited for prosecution, so some crazy Prosecutor in Texas might go after Biden on something you and i agree SHOULD NEVER be charged.

So instead of just dealing with this one issue, where both you and i can agree it is clear, that Trump DID commit crime, and not addressing all the other potential issues that MIGHT arise in the future, the SC wants to deal with them ALL now and settle the issue.

So...

Step 1 : they will force the definition of WHAT IS and WHAT IS NOT a presidential act..

Step 2 : Trump charges will THEN move forward as not presidential acts.

Again you can say, 'i only want Step 2 and do not care if presidential acts are defined for the future or not' and i might agree, but we are not the SC.,
 
QP! said:
Let me try this again.

It is POSSIBLE a future POTUS may be accused of something that MAY or MAY NOT be a crime and is not as black and white as this is.
Click to expand...

Organizing and sustaining a violent coup is no ones definition of presidential duties.
 
Hume said:
Organizing and sustaining a violent coup is no ones definition of presidential duties.
Click to expand...
And NO ONE said it was.

You are being painfully simple here.

Again the SC could say:

- We will deal with this as a one off as it is clear a coup is not a presidential duty

and they could be done with it.

Or.... OR...

- The SC could say we will use this issue to define what ARE or ARE NOT presidential acts for ALL TIME so we do not have to deal with future issues one by one in the future.

Stop thinking about this case for one minute and think about a future where 10 cases, come one by one. Some seem to clearly be NOT presidential duties (as this coup was not), ...others are clearly presidential duties ... and some seem to be a grey zone. It is not clear.


You reply, 'I do not care about the future and addressing the bigger issue, just deal with the coup as it is clear'. And then when we get to Case 2 you say the same thing 'this one too is clear, so the SC should reject it too'. And so on and so on until you get to one you think the Prosecutor was wrong and you want to the SC to hear and throw it out.

That is what you are pushing. A one off approach to all and that is FINE. The SC however wants a solution for ALL so they do not have to deal with one offs. And they get to make the choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top