ADVERTISEMENT

Dang Ol’ GOP SCOTUS Did It Again

And the Clinton Foundation?

Explosion Reaction GIF
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mcmurtry66 and DANC
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.
 
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.
You mean the Republican Trump appointees did this?
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
I enjoy it when you and DANC discuss the law. It’s like watching dogs play chess.
 
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.
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:


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.
 
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.
fREE speech does not include lying.
 
Don't get your hopes up. I think it will be a big 'meh'.
A President is immune from official acts and those closely related to official acts and remands back to the lower courts. My guess anyway.
 
A President is immune from official acts and those closely related to official acts and remands back to the lower courts. My guess anyway.
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
 
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.
You called it!
 
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.
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
I suspect this would lose 9-0. Maybe Sotomayor would take a flyer. But I couldn’t see Kagan or KBJ joining her.
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.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT