Yeah. Your point is not a Trump critique. The prosecutors abused the legal process because TRUMP!
Dang Ol’ GOP SCOTUS Did It Again
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
You just can’t stop. Bribes require something in return and you can’t point to single case Thomas ruled differently than he would have given his judicial philosophy because of his friendship with Crow, let alone one that benefited Crow.
Retrial? What are you even talking about?
The horseshit that you post . . . Hilarious.
"The inquiring judge is presiding in a criminal case involving a defendant who is a former federal official. Although the judge has searched his conscience and is confident in his own ability to be fair and impartial, the judge nevertheless asks if disclosure and/or if disqualification is ethically mandated on one of several grounds." The Ethics Panel determined that neither was necessary.
So we've got a judge who is confident he can be fair and impartial but out of an abundance of caution (no doubt occasioned in part by the fact that he's about to preside over the criminal trial of a former president of the United States) reports the situation to the State Advisory Committee for Judicial Ethics for their guidance, and gets their blessing, and your spin is that he had a problem or he wouldn't have reached out to them? I'm glad I'm not you.
Exactly. That’s an ethics rule I learned decades ago. It’s a good rule. A judge who musters the subjective confidence that he can be fair and impartial, but still asks for a review of his subjective confidence will certainly not be fair and impartial.
Does this open the door for a wealth tax?
How so? Being conflicted is an unavoidable emotion that can’t be assuaged by outside opinion.
Advice about other ethical conundrums is worthwhile, but not being conflicted. It’s a pretty simple concept. If you feel conflicted enough to ask, you are conflicted.
In Merchan’s case, we all know he was window dressing so the rubes would think he did the right thing. This prosecution was an abuse of the criminal justice system and Merchan played a role.
You're inventing irrational wisdom out of thin air.
"We all know..." This is another thing you do a lot of. We don't actually know that. You just want to claim it to back up your unjustifiable argument. Again, to most, it makes you look silly.
I agree, COH makes assumptions about what you don’t know sometimes. Just because you should, doesn’t mean you do, even if applying simple logic leads one to the same conclusions. Some are unwilling, others are unable. 😉
I do not want a medal.
I want you to admit that the propaganda spewed by Democrat “leaders” in Congress (that the GOP-appointed justices do not follow law, but merely rule based on GOP talking points) is not only a goddamned lie, it is intentionally subversive and intended to undermine faith in the judicial system so we can “ignore the Constitution and all the laws we don’t like.”
You know - admit truth.
You sound like one who was never faced with the issue, thought about it, or advised others about it.
The conflict in this case was bias. Denying bias in Bragg and Merchan is a silly argument. Merchan admitted the existance of bias with his inquiry. Whether bias was sufficient in and of itself to reverse is an objective test, but whether Merchan felt bias is 100% subjective.
Your attacks on and personal destruction of Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky tell everyone all we need to know about your views.
I admit they get it right some, and probably MOST of the time. Will you admit they are slow rolling the immunity case?
1. It is not about getting it “right.” It is following the law. You want a specific result - I want a specific process.
2. No, I will not agree they are “slow rolling” any decision. I know how opinions are assigned, written, negotiated - how dissents are added and responded to. Presidential immunity is more important to future Presidents and Congresses than to this specific election. Most Biden or Trump voters will not be affected in the least by the outcome - unless the opinion disqualifies Trump, which it will not. it is just another political clown show for folks to piss on each other about, as our institutions melt and crumble so the vote whores can be appeased by the propagandized sycophants.
Or, it's the former president of the United States appearing in your court on a criminal matter and you truly want belts and suspenders.
The conspiracies have swallowed normalcy.
I’d like them to follow the law too. That’s why it was frustrating a couple years ago where in the exact same round of decisions they wouldn’t let a state make its own gun decision and in the very next breath, said a different decision must follow the state’s laws. Trying to find specifics.
Figured. So I could admit it, but you couldn’t. Just as I expected.
I'm curious whether or not you think GOP leaders claiming liberal judges ignore the law to push a social agenda is also intentionally subversive and a "goddamned lie."
Trial courts? Appellate courts? SCOTUS?
Got an example?
The meme of the last 8 years has been about SCOTUS being the illegitimate pawn of the GOP because of GOP-Presidential appointments, and how McConnell ignored the Constitution by keeping a political hack from getting a vote. The actual performance of SCOTUS has proven otherwise, and the Constitution does ban (or even directly address) what McConnell did.
And the reason the GOP pushed so hard for those nominations was because the meme of the past 30 years was that liberal judges were purposefully undermining the rule of law in America. Don't pretend I'm wrong. Just answer the question.
The gop justices follow after trump. They are all bought and paid for.
Nothing is normal about either NY case or the D.C. case. They are all devices to affect the election. There is no civil wrong or crime crying for judicial action. The NY AG and DA brag about their intent, Smith is more subtle. But the DC indictment exposes the intent. All these cases reek of politics. NY trial judges are elected.
Last edited:
What are you talking about? Guns and abortion? Guns are in the Bill of Rights. It’s a federal question.
Abortion is not in the BOR. it’s not anywhere in the constitution, that’s why it needs to be resolved legislatively.
You specifically referenced the ethics of the Judge and how it was an indicator of an ethical problem because of the simple fact that he asked for judicial review, ergo he should be disqualified. I just pointed out that it seems a lot more logical and more likely that the judge thought he ought to have belts and suspenders.
Whether a judge is elected or appointed, politics abound. See e.g. Judge Canon. It isn't like the NYC judge had two senior judges on the federal bench down there in Florida tell him to stand down.....
Last edited:
There are a ton of rights not specifically referenced in the constitution. The 9th amendment makes it very clear--the the enumerated rights listed in the constitution and Bill of Rights are not exhaustive.
There is no constitutional reference whatsoever to presidential immunity.
There is no reference of any kind allowing for any prohibition on any free speech, yet we have judicially crafted time, place and manner restrictions.
There is no constitutional right to make unfettered campaign donations either, but somehow that is lumped into free speech. By the same vein, there is no right to regulate or limit campaign contributions if you adhere to the logic espoused by the Supreme Court.
And on and on and on.
No no no. That doesn't work. A Dem judge sitting in judgement of any Republican is inherently corrupt. Especially if they seek outside advice about any ethical questions that might be raised. It's kind of like how Clarence Thomas sought advice on whether or not all the gratuities he received needed to be reported... well... uhm... not exactly like that... but you get my drift.
Every state I'm familiar with has a Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (or some other body that provides the same services) for inquiring judges who are seeking guidance and want to be sure they're not running afoul of judicial ethics and/or an applicable code of judicial conduct.
Merchan should be commended for reaching out to New York's judicial ethics committee. They confirmed he hadn't done anything that warranted disqualification.
I know you claim to be a lawyer but the more I read your law-related posts, the more convinced I am that either that's a bogus claim or you've forgotten most of what you learned.
First of all, I spoke to the narrow current issue of the Democrats claiming SCOTUS is a pawn of the GOP. (Look at willdog7 - “bought and paid for”. Not a single thought about the Constitution. Could not cite a relevant provision for money. Nothing but a propaganda parrot.) You immediately changed the goal post to a broader issue of courts in general. While some of the dumbasses here can’t, you know that federal trial court judges - and even small panels of circuit appellate judges - are far more likely to be able to infect opinions with a pure political slant. Some do it JUST to get SCOTUS to clear up conflicts.
Second, who said this opposition was about SCOTUS pushing social agendas? Yes, the GOP has attacked the MERITS of some social issues - but not the legitimacy of the Court(at least not FDR wanted to expand and pack it for New Deal programs. Too old to matter to this discussion.)
This is about the Dems claiming a GOP Court is protecting a GOP President without regard to law, PRIOR to any actual decision, solely for votes, solely because it is Trump, and without regard to or care for what the Constitution says about Presidential authority for ALL presidents. And YOU know the difference.
Republicans have launched multiple attacks on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Everything from abortion, religious type cases, guns, etc. That great phrase of "judicial activism" certainly was spouted enough--a clear calling out of the legitimacy of the court. Nevertheless, take a look at the appointments over the years:
1969-1972: Nixon appointed Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, William Rehnquist, and Lewis Powell;
1975: Ford appointed John Paul Stevens
Just in those 6 years, Republicans were able to nominate a majority of the Supreme Court. What's to complain about there?
1981-1988: Reagan appointed Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor;
1990-1991: GHWB appointed David Souter and Clarence Thomas;
1993-1994: Clinton appointed Ginsburg and Breyer
2005-2006: GWB appointed Roberts and Alito
2009-2010: Obama appointed Sotomayor and Kagan
2017-2020: Trump appointed Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett
2022: Biden appointed Jackson
If you are a Republican, what is there to complaint about? Since 1969, Democrats have only had 5 appointments to the Court, while the republicans had 15.
Um, because it's a complicated case and will affect future Presidents.
Are you really this dense?
You are missing the nuance.
“Judicial activism” is not the same thing as “the court is illegitimate and should be ignored.”
I am not discussing or bitching about appointments and numbers.
The issue was “SCOTUS is controlled by Trumpers appointed by the GOP and the presidential immunity case is an example - they are slow-rolling it to help Trump - OMG democracy is dead.”
Here - try this - George Will was the first national conservative GOPer who voiced a bald hate for Trump. Thus, y’all can’t attack THIS messenger to avoid THIS issue:
Is he on the Supreme Court?
He's a traffic court judge who was appointed to get Trump. His selection was not a coincidence.
Last edited:
Takes a lot of chutzpa for Democrats to criticize legal gifts when the Bidens are getting 'loans' from China they don't have to pay back.
