ADVERTISEMENT

Dang Ol’ GOP SCOTUS Did It Again

DANC said:
And the Clinton Foundation?

www.investors.com

The Clinton Foundation Is Dead — But The Case Against Hillary Isn't

While everyone's been gearing up for President Trump's inauguration, the Clinton Foundation made a major announcement this week that went by with almost no notice: For all intents and purposes,... Read More
www.investors.com www.investors.com
Click to expand...
Explosion Reaction GIF
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mcmurtry66 and DANC
dbmhoosier said:
You were saying? @Willdog7

View embedded media

View embedded media
Click to expand...
Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier, Bowlmania and dbmhoosier
DANC said:
Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.
Click to expand...
You mean the Republican Trump appointees did this?
 
DANC said:
Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.
Click to expand...
Same thing they did with the 2020 election dispute. Texas really doesn't have standing to challenge an unconstitutional Presidential election? Have you seen what's happened to its border?

Good news is this means SCOTUS is very likely to drop a couple atomic bombs very soon that they left will hate...the Jan 6 case and immunity. Roberts loves to do this shit. Throw the lefties a bone to play both sides of the fence.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier, Joe_Hoopsier, Bowlmania and 1 other person
dbmhoosier said:
Same thing they did with the 2020 election dispute. Texas really doesn't have standing to challenge an unconstitutional Presidential election? Have you seen what's happened to its border?

Good news is this means SCOTUS is very likely to drop a couple atomic bombs very soon that they left will hate...the Jan 6 case and immunity. Roberts loves to do this shit. Throw the lefties a bone to play both sides of the fence.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing, but figured it was too conspiratorial. lol

I fully expect them to punt on the immunity issue, saying something like "Well, the President does have immunity, except in some cases.....". And then each case would be decided on its own, which means any lower court ruling can be appealed. Which I actually think is correct. A blanket immunity is not something I want if a Democrat is President.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: UncleMark and Bowlmania
dbmhoosier said:
Same thing they did with the 2020 election dispute. Texas really doesn't have standing to challenge an unconstitutional Presidential election? Have you seen what's happened to its border?

Good news is this means SCOTUS is very likely to drop a couple atomic bombs very soon that they left will hate...the Jan 6 case and immunity. Roberts loves to do this shit. Throw the lefties a bone to play both sides of the fence.
Click to expand...
I enjoy it when you and DANC discuss the law. It’s like watching dogs play chess.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier, Digressions, UncleMark and 1 other person
DANC said:
Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.
Click to expand...
LOL. Standing is not a "new judicial tactic." The fact you might not be familiar with it does not make it new.

I don't expect you to read it, but here's the opinion:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

The thing that stands out in the opinion is the apparent low quality of the legal arguments by the plaintiffs.

Three examples: Their lawyers didn't bother to sue the entities that actually blocked/deleted their content (Facebook and X). Also, the plaintiffs don't seem to have explained why the government was responsible for the blocking/ deletion by Facebook and X that occurred even before the government communicated with Facebook and X. And, they didn't explain why one plaintiff had standing to sue for blocking/deletion of a post by his brother, not his own post.

Read the actual opinion.
 
DANC said:
Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.
Click to expand...
fREE speech does not include lying.
 
DANC said:
Don't get your hopes up. I think it will be a big 'meh'.
Click to expand...
A President is immune from official acts and those closely related to official acts and remands back to the lower courts. My guess anyway.
 
dbmhoosier said:
A President is immune from official acts and those closely related to official acts and remands back to the lower courts. My guess anyway.
Click to expand...
Right. It all comes down to what is an official act.
 
Awww….. now they got their money’s worth. All those other decisions, Trump could care less about and likely doesn’t understand then. But today….now that he understands. Lol
 
dbmhoosier said:
Same thing they did with the 2020 election dispute. Texas really doesn't have standing to challenge an unconstitutional Presidential election? Have you seen what's happened to its border?

Good news is this means SCOTUS is very likely to drop a couple atomic bombs very soon that they left will hate...the Jan 6 case and immunity. Roberts loves to do this shit. Throw the lefties a bone to play both sides of the fence.
Click to expand...
You called it!
 
DANC said:
Only with this SC. Who knows if the makeup of the court was leftist. We have justices who can't define what a woman is.
Click to expand...
I suspect this would lose 9-0. Maybe Sotomayor would take a flyer. But I couldn’t see Kagan or KBJ joining her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
crazed_hoosier2 said:
I suspect this would lose 9-0. Maybe Sotomayor would take a flyer. But I couldn’t see Kagan or KBJ joining her.
Click to expand...
The leftists we have on there now are not really thought leaders. Put a strong leftist personality on there and it could all change drastically.

I think it's likely any SC would rule all this unconstitutional, but I wouldn't bet the future of the USA on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

outside shooter

White House Budget Office Orders Pause in all Federal Loans and Grants, effective today (NYT)

Replies
168
Views
3K
The Water Cooler
Joe_Hoopsier
Joe_Hoopsier
BradStevens

Can government policy end, or significantly decrease, childhood trauma?

Replies
70
Views
2K
The Water Cooler
UncleMark
U
C

Colt's Dad charged with 2nd degree murder (4 counts)...

Replies
18
Views
1K
The Water Cooler
WhyisIUBBcursed
WhyisIUBBcursed
BradStevens

Why we shouldn't refer to Harris and Walz as communists

Replies
123
Views
5K
The Water Cooler
bbafficionado
B
76-1

D-day in Europe 80 years ago...

Replies
36
Views
942
The Water Cooler
BradStevens
BradStevens
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back