The All Things Political Topic - A conservative is someone who makes no changes and consults his grandmother when in doubt

[Gfted1]

Trump is disqualified from Illinois ballot, judge rules | Reuters

[BruceVC]

18 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Trump is disqualified from Illinois ballot, judge rules | Reuters

But this is the type of ruling Im talking about. Whether its legally valid or not you are adding to the narrative that there is political and judicial interference to stop Trump winning 

I know you dont vote but how would you feel if you were a GOP supporter and now you cant vote for the GOP candidate in your state

Its not a good outcome, let registered voters decide who they want to vote for. Dont create legal hurdles to influence the election 

But Im sure the SC will reverse all these states that have disqualified Trump?

 

 

[Gfted1]

2 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I know you dont vote but how would you feel if you were a GOP supporter and now you cant vote for the GOP candidate in your state

Its not a good outcome, let registered voters decide who they want to vote for. Dont create legal hurdles to influence the election

1) If they are going to vote GOP regardless then there are other GOP candidates they can vote for in that case.

2) Nobody is above the law and if its proven that he broke it (which is what you guys a squealing about with the SC) then they should be removed from being able to hold the office of PotUS. Full stop.

[Valsuelm]

19 hours ago, Pidesco said:

So, did the Supreme Court just screw over the US, or what? Seems like not a single of the Trump cases will be done before the election.

The SCOTUS has made many horrific unconstitutional decisions over the years. However, the decision to hear Trump's case in regards to his claim of immunity from prosecutions is not one of them.

It likely won't be, but the decision should ultimately effectively be 9-0 that he does have immunity. It's very clear in the US Constitution that he does. A decision to the contrary will set a precedent that will do more damage to the USA than any decision since at least Wickard v. Filburn. Really, possibly any decision ever, and that's saying something, because there is no shortage of constitutional shredding decisions out of the SCOTUS in the last ~100 years.

The people campaigning that the SCOTUS is doing something wrong here are either incredibly naive, incredibly brainwashed, or incredibly evil. The owners of the media who are pushing this issue, and those who are behind the prosecutions are absolutely the latter.

Edited March 1 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Valsuelm said:

The SCOTUS has made many horrific unconstitutional decisions over the years. However, the decision to hear Trump's case in regards to his claim of immunity from prosecutions is not one of them.

It likely won't be, but the decision should ultimately effectively be 9-0 that he does have immunity. It's very clear in the US Constitution that he does. A decision to the contrary will set a precedent that will do more damage to the USA than any decision since at least Wickard v. Filburn. Really, possibly any decision ever, and that's saying something, because there is no shortage of constitutional shredding decisions out of the SCOTUS in the last ~100 years.

The people campaigning that the SCOTUS is doing something wrong here are either incredibly naive, incredibly brainwashed, or incredibly evil. The owners of the media who are pushing this issue, and those who are behind the prosecutions are absolutely the latter.

I know we not lawyers but I have  the opposite view to you, this case is about immunity to prosecution when a person is president and this applies when the person is no longer president

Why would you not want that kind of accountability? If the  president of the US breaks the law while he is president why shouldnt he be charged after he is no longer president?

 

 

 

[Valsuelm]

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

I know we not lawyers but I have  the opposite view to you, this case is about immunity to prosecution when a person is president and this applies when the person is no longer president

Why would you not want that kind of accountability? If the  president of the US breaks the law while he is president why shouldnt he be charged after he is no longer president?

 

 

 

Um.... please think about it. Really.

Forget about everything you've read or consumed in the media, remove the personalities, and think. Objectively. Think about the motives people have for prosecuting, think about the ramifications of doing so.

If it doesn't come to you, step back and take an objective look at what's been happening with Trump, Assange, Bundy, various 'January 6th' defendants, along with the 'canceling' of various other peoples. Again, remove the personalities, and objectively look at what is being done.

If it still doesn't come to you, go and read the US Constitution and then read up on why the President has the immunity to begin with, and why the impeachment process exists. It's discussed a bit in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers (as pretty much everything in the US Constitution sans later amendments is).

 

 

Note: I'm hoping you already realize two things.

A) That a great many prosecutions are political in nature. From the lowest crimes to the most egregious, justice often takes a back seat to some prosecutor's political ambitions. Corruption exists within the 'justice system', and always has to some degree.

B) That Trump isn't remotely the first US President to have been alleged to have broken many laws, nor egregious ones at that.

If you don't already realize the 'A' and 'B', then I don't think there's anything I could say here to enlighten you.
 

[uuuhhii]

as if anything can be achieved by appease the cult

they will make up what ever conspiracy they like anyway

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Valsuelm said:

Um.... please think about it. Really.

Forget about everything you've read or consumed in the media, remove the personalities, and think. Objectively. Think about the motives people have for prosecuting, think about the ramifications of doing so.

If it doesn't come to you, step back and take an objective look at what's been happening with Trump, Assange, Bundy, various 'January 6th' defendants, along with the 'canceling' of various other peoples. Again, remove the personalities, and objectively look at what is being done.

If it still doesn't come to you, go and read the US Constitution and then read up on why the President has the immunity to begin with, and why the impeachment process exists. It's discussed a bit in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers (as pretty much everything in the US Constitution sans later amendments is).

 

 

Note: I'm hoping you already realize two things.

A) That a great many prosecutions are political in nature. From the lowest crimes to the most egregious, justice often takes a back seat to some prosecutor's political ambitions. Corruption exists within the 'justice system', and always has to some degree.

B) That Trump isn't remotely the first US President to have been alleged to have broken many laws, nor egregious ones at that.

If you don't already realize the 'A' and 'B', then I don't think there's anything I could say here to enlighten you.
 

But forget Trump, this is about the precedent and applies to the reality of  being  the US president 

You can definitely be a US president without breaking the law and the WH does have  a team of lawyers to advise any president 

If Trump wins this case I think it will set a terrible precedent because that means the US president cannot be charged for anything he does while he is president 

It makes no sense, what if he sells secrets to a foreign power?

I agree  that some of his prosecutions are political in nature and should  be dropped but saying any US president is immune to prosecution while he is president is a terrible suggestion

There must always be accountability and an awareness of this accountability. Autocracies like Russia are where the president can do anything he wants with no consequence but the US is not Russia thankfully 

 

 

[Pidesco]

4 hours ago, Valsuelm said:

It likely won't be, but the decision should ultimately effectively be 9-0 that he does have immunity. It's very clear in the US Constitution that he does.

 

Citation really, really, really needed.

[BruceVC]

51 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

 

Citation really, really, really needed.

I agree, all the lawyers I have listened to say Trump will lose badly around this latest case that a US president should have immunity 

But it will be interesting to see how the SC rules 

 

[HoonDing]

No worldly authority has the right to judge Trump.

Not even a divinity authority.

Trump will raise his throne above the stars of God.

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, HoonDing said:

No worldly authority has the right to judge Trump.

Not even a divinity authority.

Trump will raise his throne above the stars of God.

Hoonding if  Trump  doesnt win are  you going to be upset?

You will be fine, life  will  go on 

Edited March 1 by BruceVC

[Gromnir]

11 hours ago, Pidesco said:

 

Citation really, really, really needed.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/731

clinton were ordered to sit for  a deposition in  a criminal matter and then took a perjury charge 'cause he lied during that interview with the  criminal prosecutor. 

a bunch o' lawyers for trump during his second impeachment argued he shouldn't be convicted by the senate 'cause the proper venue for the insurrection charges were  criminal court.

oh, and for f's sake, nixon was pardoned by President Ford. 

ford pardoned nixon even though there were no impeachment and senate conviction. the feds were bringing criminal charges against watergate coconspirators, had indicted nixon's co-conspirators and were about to indict the former President, so Ford pardoned... and absolutely nobody in 74 thought Ford's controversial pardon was pointless 'cause nixon were immune from prosecution. Ford ended any chance o' being elected in the next election by pardoning nixon, so am certain he woulda' been overjoyed to hear a pardon were unnecessary.

a fed district court has already ruled against trump. an appeals court ruled 3-0 against trump. 

tribe is unquestioned the most quoted Constitutional scholar in the US. 

luttig is arguable the most respected living textualist (conservative.)

this immunity argument is... stoopid. the Court taking the case is not so suspicious 'cause obvious there is much public confusion and a Court determination might convince a few folks who consume nothing but breitbart and fox news that Presidential immunity (save for in the civil context or while aa President is in office,) is utter unamerican and is so unconstitutional it should be decided almost immediate 9-0... save for fact J. Alito and j. thomas has both gone to a very dark and improbable place following the death o' J. Scalia.  am having great difficulty explaining aa few recent alito and thomas opinions. 

J. Roberts, on the other hand... am suspecting he is doing everything possible not to hear this case. took 49 days to go from a district court opinion to SCOTUS hearing in the similar nixon situation. over 140 days for this Court to hear trump's immunity claims?  SCOTUS granting cert is not shocking, but the delay from december to now is... curious.

Presidential immunity would not have been a controversial issue... previous to trump. can offer more cites, but is just so stoopid.

HA! Good Fun!

ps  keyboard's "a" is no longer trustworthy.

Edited March 1 by Gromnir

[Pidesco]

Excellent post but I have to say that I read Jamuel Alito, Jlarence Thomas, and Jantonin Scalia.

 

Sadly Roberts works.

[Gromnir]

30 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

Excellent post but I have to say that I read Jamuel Alito, Jlarence Thomas, and Jantonin Scalia.

 

Sadly Roberts works.

"J" before the name is kinda a reflexive shorthand for folks in our previous line o' work.

Justice.

is fundamental different from judge. 

for years we mentioned we didn't hold j. thomas in particular high regard as a Justice, but we did believe him to be an admirable judge. while we wouldn't have included j. thomas on a list o' top 50 SCOTUS Justice greats, we nevertheless respected thomas' efforts since becoming a member of The Court.

weren't until extreme recent we stopped affording thomas the cap J. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps we never had much respect for alito, but...

ain't an ideology thing neither as we had J. alito and J. Sotomayor fighting hard for our Worst Justice award. 

Edited March 1 by Gromnir

[Azdeus]

On 3/1/2024 at 6:21 PM, Gromnir said:

luttig is arguable the most respected living textualist (conservative.)

this immunity argument is... stoopid. the Court taking the case is not so suspicious 'cause obvious there is much public confusion and a Court determination might convince a few folks who consume nothing but breitbart and fox news that Presidential immunity (save for in the civil context or while aa President is in office,) is utter unamerican and is so unconstitutional it should be decided almost immediate 9-0... save for fact J. Alito and j. thomas has both gone to a very dark and improbable place following the death o' J. Scalia.  am having great difficulty explaining aa few recent alito and thomas opinions.

J. Thomas really should take that RV offered to him.

[Malcador]

Overturned the Colorado ruling, 9-0 which I guess was expected from the hearing. 3 of them had qualms with the opinion, if that matters.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4506318-supreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-ballot-challenge/

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Overturned the Colorado ruling, 9-0 which I guess was expected from the hearing. 3 of them had qualms with the opinion, if that matters.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4506318-supreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-ballot-challenge/

And  its expected,  like I said in a previous post its  a bad idea  to try to use the courts  to  influence a political  voting outcome 

Edited March 4 by BruceVC

[Bartimaeus]

Quote

The court ruled 9-0 that states have no unilateral authority to disqualify federal candidates.

Though it helps the worst person you know, letting individual states decide who they can disqualify for federal elections would be heading down a pretty dangerous path - even if the Supreme Court had strictly limited any implementation of disqualification to the 14th amendment and insurrection, that was a Pandora's Box that I was not particularly eager to see opened. The whole thing was pointless with regards to Trump in the first place: even if the Supreme Court had allowed it, the only states that would've went ahead with it would be Democrat-controlled states anyways. He'd have lost a single electoral vote from Maine's second district (Maine does not grant its electoral votes as a whole state, and Trump won Maine's second district while Biden won Maine's first district), and maybe guaranteed that he would lose Michigan. Meanwhile, you'd be possibly opening the door for Biden and Democrat senators to get kicked out of Republican-controlled states like Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia based on novel interpretations by executive and judicial office-holders in those states.

No, as is usually the case, the voters get the candidates they deserve and we're going to have to save ourselves from ourselves. With civic virtue being at an all-time low, I'm not very optimistic.

Edited March 5 by Bartimaeus
"I" & "was" switched places

[Malcador]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-68500431

Haiti still going through the wringer.

[HoonDing]

It's literally Saints Row

[Bartimaeus]

Power lines ignited the largest wildfire in Texas history and one nearby, officials say

This will, uh, 'please' @PK htiw klaw eriF.

[Sarex]

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68534703

[BruceVC]

8 hours ago, Sarex said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68534703

You thinking what Im thinking, bad  Russians again 

[Gorth]

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

You thinking what Im thinking, bad  Russians again 

I don't think it was the Russians this time... he didn't fall out of the window. On the other hand, Boeing's subcontractor may have Russian connections, considering how their windows fall off the planes