Trump and the United States Supreme Court
- Thread starter Bowlmania
- Start date
I’m going to say the s.Ct. Is going to try to rule in a fashion that doesn’t disenfranchise voters so will keep him on ballots but won’t let him off the hook for his shitty ways and will deny immunity.
Completely agree. And it will be easier to rule against him on immunity after ruling in his favor on the eligibility question.
The eligibility question should be 9-0, but will probably be 8-1 cuz Jackson.
The immunity will be 7-2., but I think it will be a matter of statutory interpretation without finding immunity.
Supremes won't let the CO ruling stand, no matter how sound it might be. It's just a bridge too far.
The immunity question shouldn't even be taken up, but if they do he'll lose. If he doesn't, the the Court will have shown its true colors.
The immunity question shouldn't even be taken up, but if they do he'll lose. If he doesn't, the the Court will have shown its true colors.
If they rule Presidents have total immunity, then what’s to keep the current, or any future presidents from ordering the assassination of their political opponent? There will always be someone loyal enough to a president to do it. What’s to keep them from committing any crime possible? Extreme example, I know, but something to consider. Unless they set specific parameters.
I think that the Colorado decision might be decided on separation of powers grounds. If they give him a chance on the ballot that gives them cover on the immunity issue.
BTW, my guess is that the Colorado Supremes may have decided this one believing that SCOTUS would be having their say anyway. Kinda like the ruling on the field stands unless overturned in the booth. Why not try it? It's an issue that could go either way.
I think that the Georgia case will be the nail in his political coffin. Some high-powered legal talent for the prosecution on that one . . . .
Of course SCOTUS might not cooperate. They might leave the Colorado decision intact and let the prosecutions play out. That'd teach those libs. If he's convicted, they can look prescient. If not, they've set him up for 2028.
Last edited:
The decision is laid out with that specifically accounted for.
K.
Are you talking about the delay in the effectiveness of the ruling? That sentence was a set up for the rest of my point - that the ruling was to force SCOTUS to overturn their decision.
You'd be immune for things in line with your duties as the POTUS like seeing our legally passed election laws and our Constitution are upheld. It's the actual job of the executive branch to enforce the laws after all.
Assassinating your opponent would obviously not be in furtherance of your official duties as President.
We've got two threads going on the latest Trump news (the CO ballot question) that have been nearly devoid of the typical bomb throwing and shit posting we usually see. Quite refreshing. I'm going to do what I can to keep them that way. If you don't like it you can take a vacay.
**** you, ****ing ****.
You could have at least spelled everything correctly.
I agree. The standard should be performing the duties of your office.
In one of the threads you suggested that the current Supreme Court and any ruling it may make on the Trump/ CO issue could
be illegitimate due to the political make up of who appointed the justices.
That kind of political, bullshit , asshattery poisons the well as much as anything else. Look in a god damn mirror.
When you deleted Goo's post you deleted my reply also. It was a good point.
That's my SOP -- any reply to a deleted post that quotes the deletion gets zapped as well.
It's a system issue, not anything you do. I appreciate your cleaning up the ****, but I thought I had the content of his post handled. Maybe not, but I thought that was the case.
I could understand calling another poster a bitch, although it’s not something they’ve ever enforced on me.
An elected official? Get serious.
Incorrect. Your post posted, including the quote of the deleted GG post. (You replied before I deleted GG's post.) I deleted your reply with the quote on purpose. I'm not about to start editing posts to remove included quotes.
You know exactly what you posted and why it was deleted. Time to move on. It's getting late and I'm getting cranky.
If the standard is "keep it clean" that needs to be communicated. If it has been communicated you got what you deserve, maybe less. You'd have been gone when I was a mod.
When did that change occur? Used to be when you got rid of a post, you got rid of its progeny.
Dunno. Switch to topic view instead of thread view maybe? Been this way since I've been modding, which has been a couple years now.
The moment of the great evil, this place has sucked since.
Neither is scheming to install slates of fake electors, using the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations, pressuring the Vice President to alter the election results, and otherwise unlawfully trying to remain in power after losing the election.
When did “alternative slates” which have been a thing since forever start to get called “fake slates”.
The 17th amendment was a heresy I swear. Made people think that this country is somehow or should be a pure democracy.
State governments should nominate who they would like for president.
Similar threads
