Today’s debacle, er, I mean hearing in the Trump Unsupreme Court saw the sellout of the Republic by the six traitor “judges” as they worked overtime to come up with arguments that will support at least most of Trump’s claim of absolute presidential immunity, and at a minimum will force the federal district court to work through which of the charges against Trump for fomenting the January 6 insurrection are “chargeable,” while maintaining Trump’s right of appeal within the systemover any decisions made by the district court in that examination, guaranteeing that this case will not go to trial before 2025 at the earliest (and never if Trump wins re-election).
I am shocked, shocked, I tell you, to hear that a Supreme Court with three Trump appointees has gone off the democratic rails into autocracy land! How can this be? Surely there's some loyalty to our base values of freedom, equality, and democracy. Nope. The court is driven by actual traitors to our nation.
But, his laptop, He wasn't born here, Monica, Burt Lance, Hey, hey LBJ, How many kids have you killed today, Marylyn, the Milk Scandal, Dictator Roosevelt.
Today's utterly disgraceful showing by the conservative justices makes it toweringly important Democrats take back the House and expand our majority in the Senate. Because " Article III judges [Supreme Court justices, and federal circuit and district judges] can be removed from office only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate."
And of course we have to turn out the Democratic vote in November, to ensure Democratic control of the House and Senate, and critically, to ensure that Joe Biden wins and Donald Trump loses.
The rule of law in America is a long way from perfect, certainly. White people get a lot more justice than brown people. Rich people get a lot more justice than poor people. Police get more justice than not-police. But we still have courts of law, and a lot of judges and prosecutors and attorneys are knowledgeable, honest, and trying hard to be fair, although there are certainly far too many examples to the contrary. But I resist the idea that we have no rule of law at all, or that it is somehow preordained and inevitable that corruption and political cronyism will win the day. Yesterday was a steaming disgrace, granted. And the response is that millions of people, including many people in power, are outraged and even more determined that the former guy will be made to face justice. I'm not going to be cynical. I'm not going to give up.
I listened to the whole damned thing today. Why are hypotheticals taking the place of ruling on the narrow issues presented? Why does Alito meander into philosophy, and “ruling for the ages”? Talk about legislating from the bench. I’m pissed. This is a decision on THIS CASE, with narrow parameters, not a policy determination.
I call bullsh*t on Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts. They belong in some banana republic as the bought and paid for property of some drug cartel.
It was a clever end-around free and fair elections wherein the country might have a liberal majority that would actually legislate and govern, wasn't it? It's how the right wing control freaks and their think tanks operate.
Alito is a thug, pure and simple. the soul and conscience of a thug, fancied up with some legalese he picked up at school. you remember that jailhouse lawyer who was a walking malapropism on "In Living Color?" Alito, but with significantly more charisma...
Because, just in general, courts want to look at an issue from all angles before making a decision. Because they -- the smart ones, anyway -- know that any decision will be interpreted, re-interpreted, mis-interpreted, etc. (The same goes for laws passed by any legislature.) Have you ever listened to court arguments before?
I’ve listened to court arguments many times. Should you like a resume, I’ll decline. This was not a hearing based on the facts presented. It was a hearing based upon speculation and navel gazing, more appropriate to a legislative session than a determinative legal review.
What struck me among the conservatives was the presumption of venality which they seem to apply to potential presidents. For two hundred years, we’ve had presidents who have not attempted to prosecute a former president. Even Joe Biden has taken a very hands off approach to Trump. And now the conservatives think this is going to become common place. As is so often the case with modern “conservatives“ I think they are projecting.
The Founding Father’s knew that civility and education in civic life were necessary for democracies to work. They were very conscious of the experience of democracies in antiquity and how partisanship could turn into hard feelings and could ruin democratic government and create autocracy. If we really are convinced that presidents will routinely prosecute their rivals or predecessors, we’ve already lost the game. Frankly, the same goes if we think that presidents will routinely violate criminal laws while in office. If we truly believe that presidents will be so venal and corrupt hereafter, I think the only solution is to be sure that there is no immunity of any sort. Yes, future presidents may feel hemmed in and cautious. But considering the enormous power that is reserved to the office of the president in the Constitution, and as a practical matter through control of prosecutorial offices and the military, I much prefer caution.
This is a good point, but here's my attempt at an explanation: Trump introduced a level of venality (along with general flouting of the Constitution, precedent, and other things) to the presidency that hadn't been seen before, at least not in public and not while the president was in office. So they *have* to deal with it. Things that were hypothetical before Trump came along are no longer hypothetical, so they have to come up with new hypotheticals.
Why not? I think the case is about the limits on a president's power. Some commenters here and elsewhere seem to assume that the justices ask questions because they agree with the underlying premise. In some cases they do. In other cases they don't. At the D.C. Circuit Court, Judge Florence Pan raised that hypothetical about a president ordering SEAL Team 6 to assassinate opponent. I don't believe for a minute that she thought that was a good idea.
With the 5 white dudes on the Red Court, experience as shown that expecting the worst from them will generally leave you unsurprised, but occasionally (very occasionbally) gratified.
Malvina Reynolds had a song that went "When you think you've hit bottom / There's a bottom below." The last eight years have been like that. In fact, the years since Reagan took office have been like that, but with a few periods of recovery, sanity, whatever you want to call it.
I wanted to elaborate a bit. If the justices, whether conservative or progressive, truly have such a jaundiced view of politicians as malefactors or maybe killers, the justices need to realize that in the arguments today they were trying to find a way to legislate morals. That seems a fool’s errand. If the politicians are so bad, they won’t pay attention to the justices’ ruling anyway. They will prosecute or murder as they please. So we need to be practical. Give them immunity, and they will do bad and the courts cannot rein them in. Withhold immunity and even if you find a president willing to prosecute a former president, the courts are there to prevent an injustice.
Unless, of course, you assume the courts are sufficiently corrupt to go along with the miscreant prosecuting president. Oops! Someone’s slip is showing….
These jokers aren’t even trying. They are discussing the best ways to walk on water or to convert straw to gold. There is no such thing as presidential immunity. This is nuts.
With the three branches thinking they are equal, the next thing you know, the SCOTUS and legislature will draw down various immunities for themselves. Alas, POTUS, being commander-in-chief will have the ultimate tool of enforcement of executive decrees, the US Military. Snakes and Putin smile.
Hard agree. I am listening George Conway basically spewing bullshit to Sarah Longwell and he is unconvincing.
I kept one ear on and one eye on the blurbs being dropped on the NY Times, and I think that there are probably 4 who will grant Trump immunity, and two wobbly ones. It might be just Roberts siding with the three Liberals, and this will basically be a shit show.
I think they are going into overtime to a) delay, and b) give trump free rein
So now we have a Court Constituted of five (count 'em FIVE) men who essentially refuse to read or follow he Constitution, Three ladies who place the Constitution as is written The Supreme law of the Land and one lady who strictly reads and follows the Constitution so long as it doesn't interfere with her religious beliefs. I can live with the four ladies, but I know damned well that among the numerous male lawyers and judges are many, many men who hold the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land. One more good reason to take the appointment of judges out of the hands of politicians.
Yesterday the Justices were looking for ways to prevent pregnant women in pain and terrified they were miscarrying from receiving care in emergency rooms.
Today they are looking for ways to protect Trump from prosecution when he tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
All is not lost, the 4 women on the court didn’t seem to be confused, 4 of the numb nuts totally missed the point, which leaves the swing vote the Chief. He didn’t tip his hand but he is known for being disturbed about the legacy that the “Robert’s Court” will be leaving, as he should be. To most of us this is a slam dunk, 3 of the numb nuts are beyond redemption but Kavanaugh listens to the Chief sometimes, and might be persuaded into a 6-3. Neal Katayl and Lawrence Tribe tonight were hopeful that on the merits the case is clear, that was my view before I heard them speak. Neal was in the courtroom today where he could see the body language which as we know can speak volumes, he also suggested that Chutkan could hold a hearing, as different from a trial and start it very soon thereby bringing into the public record the whole sordid story. I want the insipid bastard to go to jail and if it’s in GA or NY I’ll be fine with that. Andrew Weismann pointed out that the Special Counsel because of the Grand Jury, has far more info to bring than the Jan 6 Committee was able to get, I could go on but it’s been a long day, good night all. 🙏
Let them give Biden immunity - then he can arrest Alito and Thomas for corruption and taking bribes, getting them off the Court until their trials (which could then be delayed as Trump's have been, for months if not years - while two new liberal justices were added to the Court). And he'd have immunity..... Be careful what you wish for.
I have lots of problems with the way our systems of power work in this country. Because they do not work for the majority. The perfect example is this "Supreme" Court. The court is packed by a minority party using bad faith tactics. It is not a legitimate ruling body. Unless you are Mitch McConnell or one of the other paid oligarchs lackeys (Trump and the MAGA cult). The only difference between the USA and Russia is that we pretend we are not corrupt from top to bottom.
Oh, if President Biden would be there to give those anticonstitutional justices this view of their idea. He might voice how wrong it could be for them personally, drawing a starters pistol and firing it twice in the direction of a pair of them. As the soiled underwear cooled, Dark Branden could then explain that if they continued their current path they should expect to see him again "with full presidential immunity and not blanks next time."
Too much Deadwood, too many Clint Eastwood movies watched, too much frustrated impotent anger here. Is that what they want, and does that mean they're winning? By making our thoughts turn towards the violent.
in the middle of a major health crisis for Jubal (one which might not end happily, even in the immediate future), I tried to listen to the arguments. I'd tuned in almost an hour late, but I just flat-out couldn't believe the shit I was hearing.
fuck their ivy league degrees...some of those guys on SCOTUS are moronic scumbags. and that's not even considering the existence of Clarence Thomas.
since nothing else is going to work any time soon, I'm all for "Court-packing." like ANY change of this magnitude, it has pretty much zero chance of happening.
we should have left thirty years ago...and from here, thirty years ago in the US looks almost fucking UTOPIAN.
that I'd gonna die in this country is very, very depressing.
Awe David❤️please give Jubal and yourself a hug from me. What a crappy day from a group of Leonard Leo, Harlan crow puppets doing their bidding to protect their useful idiot and get him back in office for their personal gain. Dogs, cats, and all animals are far superior to most people. Take care David and Jubal. My cats and I are with you in spirit.
and here I am, reporting that Jubal was just having a worse attack of the vestibular thing he had back in Fall. so now Jubal (who gets a tiny bit better every day) is sleeping in the bathroom, behind me. Daisy is being remarkable helpful as well. and--best of all--my best friend Danny (their favorite person INCLUDING me) has been spending all his free time here, so I get plenty of help. he was still grouchy this morning, but as long as he doesn't summon me with those high-pitched YIP things (intolerable to any human ear), we're doing okay.
and again, thanks so much for caring about my significant others...
Awe David❤️please give Jubal and yourself a hug from me. What a crappy day from a group of Leonard Leo, Harlan crow puppets doing their bidding to protect their useful idiot and get him back in office for their personal gain. Dogs, cats, and all animals are far superior to most people. Take care David and Jubal. My cats and I are with you in spirit.
I am shocked, shocked, I tell you, to hear that a Supreme Court with three Trump appointees has gone off the democratic rails into autocracy land! How can this be? Surely there's some loyalty to our base values of freedom, equality, and democracy. Nope. The court is driven by actual traitors to our nation.
Yeah, but her emails!!
But, his laptop, He wasn't born here, Monica, Burt Lance, Hey, hey LBJ, How many kids have you killed today, Marylyn, the Milk Scandal, Dictator Roosevelt.
Today's utterly disgraceful showing by the conservative justices makes it toweringly important Democrats take back the House and expand our majority in the Senate. Because " Article III judges [Supreme Court justices, and federal circuit and district judges] can be removed from office only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate."
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judges-and-judicial-administration-journalists-guide
And of course we have to turn out the Democratic vote in November, to ensure Democratic control of the House and Senate, and critically, to ensure that Joe Biden wins and Donald Trump loses.
Allowing anything else to happen is unthinkable.
This entire statement assumes that rule of law is intact. It isn't, and never has been. Donald is just showing us how the sausage gets made.
The rule of law in America is a long way from perfect, certainly. White people get a lot more justice than brown people. Rich people get a lot more justice than poor people. Police get more justice than not-police. But we still have courts of law, and a lot of judges and prosecutors and attorneys are knowledgeable, honest, and trying hard to be fair, although there are certainly far too many examples to the contrary. But I resist the idea that we have no rule of law at all, or that it is somehow preordained and inevitable that corruption and political cronyism will win the day. Yesterday was a steaming disgrace, granted. And the response is that millions of people, including many people in power, are outraged and even more determined that the former guy will be made to face justice. I'm not going to be cynical. I'm not going to give up.
Nobody should give up - we're stuck with this and we are the only solution.
as much as I hate to agree with anything THAT negative...I'm gonna have to agree.
I listened to the whole damned thing today. Why are hypotheticals taking the place of ruling on the narrow issues presented? Why does Alito meander into philosophy, and “ruling for the ages”? Talk about legislating from the bench. I’m pissed. This is a decision on THIS CASE, with narrow parameters, not a policy determination.
Unless you see your job as protecting Trump.
I thought the philosophy of a unitary executive was strongly in evidence.
I call bullsh*t on Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts. They belong in some banana republic as the bought and paid for property of some drug cartel.
We've abdicated the job of lawmaking to 6 unelected fascist apologists on the 'court', really. The result is not surprising.
It was a clever end-around free and fair elections wherein the country might have a liberal majority that would actually legislate and govern, wasn't it? It's how the right wing control freaks and their think tanks operate.
Alito is a thug, pure and simple. the soul and conscience of a thug, fancied up with some legalese he picked up at school. you remember that jailhouse lawyer who was a walking malapropism on "In Living Color?" Alito, but with significantly more charisma...
Never saw the show, but will accept it. This is the same guy that harkened BACK TO THE 1600’s in his Dobbs decision. BLECH.
Because, just in general, courts want to look at an issue from all angles before making a decision. Because they -- the smart ones, anyway -- know that any decision will be interpreted, re-interpreted, mis-interpreted, etc. (The same goes for laws passed by any legislature.) Have you ever listened to court arguments before?
I’ve listened to court arguments many times. Should you like a resume, I’ll decline. This was not a hearing based on the facts presented. It was a hearing based upon speculation and navel gazing, more appropriate to a legislative session than a determinative legal review.
Where to begin?
What struck me among the conservatives was the presumption of venality which they seem to apply to potential presidents. For two hundred years, we’ve had presidents who have not attempted to prosecute a former president. Even Joe Biden has taken a very hands off approach to Trump. And now the conservatives think this is going to become common place. As is so often the case with modern “conservatives“ I think they are projecting.
The Founding Father’s knew that civility and education in civic life were necessary for democracies to work. They were very conscious of the experience of democracies in antiquity and how partisanship could turn into hard feelings and could ruin democratic government and create autocracy. If we really are convinced that presidents will routinely prosecute their rivals or predecessors, we’ve already lost the game. Frankly, the same goes if we think that presidents will routinely violate criminal laws while in office. If we truly believe that presidents will be so venal and corrupt hereafter, I think the only solution is to be sure that there is no immunity of any sort. Yes, future presidents may feel hemmed in and cautious. But considering the enormous power that is reserved to the office of the president in the Constitution, and as a practical matter through control of prosecutorial offices and the military, I much prefer caution.
You and Justice Jackson - and the rest of us.
This is a good point, but here's my attempt at an explanation: Trump introduced a level of venality (along with general flouting of the Constitution, precedent, and other things) to the presidency that hadn't been seen before, at least not in public and not while the president was in office. So they *have* to deal with it. Things that were hypothetical before Trump came along are no longer hypothetical, so they have to come up with new hypotheticals.
Just not the ones they're coming up with.
Why not? I think the case is about the limits on a president's power. Some commenters here and elsewhere seem to assume that the justices ask questions because they agree with the underlying premise. In some cases they do. In other cases they don't. At the D.C. Circuit Court, Judge Florence Pan raised that hypothetical about a president ordering SEAL Team 6 to assassinate opponent. I don't believe for a minute that she thought that was a good idea.
With the 5 white dudes on the Red Court, experience as shown that expecting the worst from them will generally leave you unsurprised, but occasionally (very occasionbally) gratified.
Malvina Reynolds had a song that went "When you think you've hit bottom / There's a bottom below." The last eight years have been like that. In fact, the years since Reagan took office have been like that, but with a few periods of recovery, sanity, whatever you want to call it.
very well put...thank you, Gary.
I thank you for two reasons: 1) you're completely correct and 2) I plan on using some of your points in future conversations.
Feel free.
I wanted to elaborate a bit. If the justices, whether conservative or progressive, truly have such a jaundiced view of politicians as malefactors or maybe killers, the justices need to realize that in the arguments today they were trying to find a way to legislate morals. That seems a fool’s errand. If the politicians are so bad, they won’t pay attention to the justices’ ruling anyway. They will prosecute or murder as they please. So we need to be practical. Give them immunity, and they will do bad and the courts cannot rein them in. Withhold immunity and even if you find a president willing to prosecute a former president, the courts are there to prevent an injustice.
Unless, of course, you assume the courts are sufficiently corrupt to go along with the miscreant prosecuting president. Oops! Someone’s slip is showing….
These jokers aren’t even trying. They are discussing the best ways to walk on water or to convert straw to gold. There is no such thing as presidential immunity. This is nuts.
With the three branches thinking they are equal, the next thing you know, the SCOTUS and legislature will draw down various immunities for themselves. Alas, POTUS, being commander-in-chief will have the ultimate tool of enforcement of executive decrees, the US Military. Snakes and Putin smile.
Hard agree. I am listening George Conway basically spewing bullshit to Sarah Longwell and he is unconvincing.
I kept one ear on and one eye on the blurbs being dropped on the NY Times, and I think that there are probably 4 who will grant Trump immunity, and two wobbly ones. It might be just Roberts siding with the three Liberals, and this will basically be a shit show.
I think they are going into overtime to a) delay, and b) give trump free rein
sounds right to me...
So now we have a Court Constituted of five (count 'em FIVE) men who essentially refuse to read or follow he Constitution, Three ladies who place the Constitution as is written The Supreme law of the Land and one lady who strictly reads and follows the Constitution so long as it doesn't interfere with her religious beliefs. I can live with the four ladies, but I know damned well that among the numerous male lawyers and judges are many, many men who hold the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land. One more good reason to take the appointment of judges out of the hands of politicians.
Yesterday the Justices were looking for ways to prevent pregnant women in pain and terrified they were miscarrying from receiving care in emergency rooms.
Today they are looking for ways to protect Trump from prosecution when he tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
SCOTUS is broken.
SCOTUS 6 has been bought and paid for.
I continue to hope for a better outcome, but fear that you are closer to right than I am.
Wish I was wrong.
As do we all. Even at the height of the post Kent State protests there was more hope and with better foundation than I feel right now.
All is not lost, the 4 women on the court didn’t seem to be confused, 4 of the numb nuts totally missed the point, which leaves the swing vote the Chief. He didn’t tip his hand but he is known for being disturbed about the legacy that the “Robert’s Court” will be leaving, as he should be. To most of us this is a slam dunk, 3 of the numb nuts are beyond redemption but Kavanaugh listens to the Chief sometimes, and might be persuaded into a 6-3. Neal Katayl and Lawrence Tribe tonight were hopeful that on the merits the case is clear, that was my view before I heard them speak. Neal was in the courtroom today where he could see the body language which as we know can speak volumes, he also suggested that Chutkan could hold a hearing, as different from a trial and start it very soon thereby bringing into the public record the whole sordid story. I want the insipid bastard to go to jail and if it’s in GA or NY I’ll be fine with that. Andrew Weismann pointed out that the Special Counsel because of the Grand Jury, has far more info to bring than the Jan 6 Committee was able to get, I could go on but it’s been a long day, good night all. 🙏
Let them give Biden immunity - then he can arrest Alito and Thomas for corruption and taking bribes, getting them off the Court until their trials (which could then be delayed as Trump's have been, for months if not years - while two new liberal justices were added to the Court). And he'd have immunity..... Be careful what you wish for.
I doubt Biden would do that, but I bet Harris would. She has sharper elbows.
I have lots of problems with the way our systems of power work in this country. Because they do not work for the majority. The perfect example is this "Supreme" Court. The court is packed by a minority party using bad faith tactics. It is not a legitimate ruling body. Unless you are Mitch McConnell or one of the other paid oligarchs lackeys (Trump and the MAGA cult). The only difference between the USA and Russia is that we pretend we are not corrupt from top to bottom.
Oh, if President Biden would be there to give those anticonstitutional justices this view of their idea. He might voice how wrong it could be for them personally, drawing a starters pistol and firing it twice in the direction of a pair of them. As the soiled underwear cooled, Dark Branden could then explain that if they continued their current path they should expect to see him again "with full presidential immunity and not blanks next time."
Too much Deadwood, too many Clint Eastwood movies watched, too much frustrated impotent anger here. Is that what they want, and does that mean they're winning? By making our thoughts turn towards the violent.
Ok,as Joyce Vance said tonight….”Set your expectations accordingly.”
We all know we cannot depend on SCOTUS to deliver us from evil! 🥵
Keep at it all…do what is within your comfort zone! ✍️📲💲📣🚶🏻
in the middle of a major health crisis for Jubal (one which might not end happily, even in the immediate future), I tried to listen to the arguments. I'd tuned in almost an hour late, but I just flat-out couldn't believe the shit I was hearing.
fuck their ivy league degrees...some of those guys on SCOTUS are moronic scumbags. and that's not even considering the existence of Clarence Thomas.
since nothing else is going to work any time soon, I'm all for "Court-packing." like ANY change of this magnitude, it has pretty much zero chance of happening.
we should have left thirty years ago...and from here, thirty years ago in the US looks almost fucking UTOPIAN.
that I'd gonna die in this country is very, very depressing.
Best wishes for Jubal, David.
Awe David❤️please give Jubal and yourself a hug from me. What a crappy day from a group of Leonard Leo, Harlan crow puppets doing their bidding to protect their useful idiot and get him back in office for their personal gain. Dogs, cats, and all animals are far superior to most people. Take care David and Jubal. My cats and I are with you in spirit.
Dogs, cats, and all animals are far superior to most people.
True dat (just not this crowd).
You’re so right. I should have specified TAFM family not included
thanks so much, Karen. appointment's in two hours...
Good luck!
Stay in touch David.
and here I am, reporting that Jubal was just having a worse attack of the vestibular thing he had back in Fall. so now Jubal (who gets a tiny bit better every day) is sleeping in the bathroom, behind me. Daisy is being remarkable helpful as well. and--best of all--my best friend Danny (their favorite person INCLUDING me) has been spending all his free time here, so I get plenty of help. he was still grouchy this morning, but as long as he doesn't summon me with those high-pitched YIP things (intolerable to any human ear), we're doing okay.
and again, thanks so much for caring about my significant others...
Great news! Hurrah for Jubal!!
Awe David❤️please give Jubal and yourself a hug from me. What a crappy day from a group of Leonard Leo, Harlan crow puppets doing their bidding to protect their useful idiot and get him back in office for their personal gain. Dogs, cats, and all animals are far superior to most people. Take care David and Jubal. My cats and I are with you in spirit.
see above, Karen (if that's where it ends up).
thank YOU again.
#1 Thomas should have been no where near the court today! Roberts should have had the guts as Chief Justice
to tell him to sit this one out.
As for the others and their
phony baloney hypotheticals?
Where were they on Jan. 6, 2021? Do they honestly think
this bloated lying, cheating,
adulterous child is worth the
destruction of the Constitution they supposedly
revere? How would Barrett feel if he gets into power again and 1 of his official acts
is to have Ketanji Jackson taken out and shot on the
SCOTUS steps?
Let's see what Jack Smith's
next moves are. One can hope he saw this coming and
is prepared.
Imagine being Smith and knowing the USSC along with the worthless stooge 'judge' Cannon are totally in the tank for the criminal you're prosecuting
Jack Smith has competed in Iron Man Triathlons. He knows how to pace himself and stick with it.