Nice Supreme Court you have there…

… It would be a shame if something bad happened to it because you were disloyal.

Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s Motion for Immunity from criminal prosecution expected today at 10am ET.

Share
Avatar photo

Author: craigcrawford

Trail Mix Host

103 thoughts on “Nice Supreme Court you have there…”

  1. parody project’s take 

    A parody of Honesty by Billy Joel. Parody; Lyrics by David Cohen; Performance and Video Editing by Don Caron “When I wanted usefulness it wasn’t hard to find I gave three frauds a lifetime gig Then when I needed lawlessness they slowed the clock on crime It’s why I stacked the court so it was rigged

  2. Trump posted this last night.

    She responded…

    Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney)
    Donald – This is the type of thing that demonstrates yet again that you are not a stable adult—and are not fit for office.

  3. in other news Voters kick all the Republican women out of the South Carolina Senate (msn.com)

    COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The only three Republican women in the South Carolina Senate took on their party and stopped a total abortion ban from passing in their state last year. In return, they lost their jobs.

    Voters removed Sens. Sandy Senn, Penry Gustafson and Katrina Shealy from office during sparsely turned out primaries in June, and by doing so completely vacated the Republican wing of the five-member “Sister Senators,” a female contingent that included two Democrats and was joined in their opposition to the abortion ban.

    […]

    How scant has political influence historically been for women in South Carolina? Small portraits of every woman who has ever served in the 170-seat General Assembly in the 250 years it has met fit on a poster framed just outside the governor’s office.

    […]

    Barring a woman winning a race in November in a district dominated by the other party, there will be only two women in the 46-member South Carolina Senate when the 126th session starts in January. No other state in the country would have fewer women in its upper chamber, according to Center of American Women in Politics.Women make up 55% of the state’s registered voters.

    [continued]

    think this might have some effect on turnout for  nov election?

  4. UVA’s Larry Sabato on Trump’s threat against Liz Cheney…

    @LarrySabato
    America, this is just a hint of what’s to come under a democracy-smothering second term for Trump. Wake up!

  5. @MorningMika
    : “The choice is one terribly bad night versus a decade of destruction to our core beliefs, our democratic values, and yes, our Constitution… For me, Joe Biden is still the man for this moment.”

    &&&@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    She’s disagreeing with Scarborough who came on the morning after with an absolutely idiotic “plea” for Biden to remove himself. Scars may have become a Never Trumper, but that didn’t change him from being a moron.

  6. from Georgetown Law prof. Steve_Vladeck…

    Some reminders for the #SCOTUS rulings we expect starting at 10a ET:

    1. Rulings are announced in reverse seniority order based upon who wrote for the Court.

    2. We don’t know whether we’re getting three rulings or four, because the two NetChoice cases could be decided together or separately.

    3. Rulings don’t post to the website until justices start reading from the bench (so oral dissents in earlier cases can help to delay things).

    4. My best guesses (but they’re *just* guesses) are that Justice Barrett has one (or *the*) NetChoice opinion; Justice Alito has Corner Post; and the Chief Justice has Trump.

    5. If that holds, we’ll get Trump last (or second-to-last, if there’s an unsigned ruling in the other NetChoice case).

    6. In other words, folks should (try to) be patient; it’s likely going to take some time.

  7. Pumpkin on a roll this morning…

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump
    Only three things could have been the reason that Crooked Joe Biden, the worst President in the history of the United States, failed so badly at the debate on Thursday night. THEY WERE: 1) “TRUMP WAS REALLY GREAT!” In all fairness, and I say in complete and total modesty, many, on both sides of the political spectrum, have said it was the greatest single debate performance in the long and storied history of Presidential Debates. Thank you! 2) CROOKED JOE “CHOKED” LIKE A DOG. 3) JOE IS A COGNITIVE MESS! It could be combinations of all three, but ask yourself this question, as a proud citizen of the United States of America (which no longer means a thing, to many, as millions of people flow into our Country, totally unchecked and unvetted!), would you rather have a President who is a CHOKER, or a President who is a COGNITIVE MESS??? Also, did my Debate Performance play a role in Joe’s total “disembowelment” before the World? Our Fake Historians over at CNN & MSDNC would like to know???
    Jul 01, 2024, 8:37 AM

  8. Democrats need to pick up the Court’s evil fascists and shake ‘em.
    Now.

  9. I was astounded at the hew and cry of the pundits such as the NYT Editorial Board calling for Joe to step aside.  And there’s Mara Gay on MoJo this morning “explaining” the editorial board’s call and OTOH admitting that of the two candidates her decision is an easy one – Joe.  Ay caramba.

  10. I have more than a passing interest in today’s ruling. I am still in the jury pool as far as I know. Here are two ways I can see this turning out.

    1) The Court could send it back to judge for determination of what is immune official presidential action and what is unofficial action not immune from criminal prosecution. Not a great scenario for Trump because judge would then hold an evidentiary hearing to make that determination and much of the evidence against him would become public. And the judge in this case is no slow poke. Judge Chutkan could hold this “mini-trial” before the election.

    2) The other possible outcome is the court decides itself what is official or unofficial action. In that scenario prosecutors could simply drop the counts deemed official and go forward with the case, possibly before the election, on counts the Supreme Court found not immune.

    The only truly big win for Trump seems the least likely — a ruling that presidents are completely immune from any criminal prosecution.

  11. Before things get insane today, I’ll share a moment of early morning serendipity: a gentle thump on my kitchen window, and then another one. I went over to discover a baby mourning dove sitting dazedly on the patio a few feet away (a close-up view.) Minutes later, she flew safely to the tree. This is special because our mourning dove population has been largely crowded out by the larger and more squawky eurasian collared dove.

  12. Another interesting question is will Supreme Court allow the Special Counsel to use “official” acts that might be struck from the indictment as contextual evidence for a jury at trial?

  13. Ivy, so nice to hear a dove couple had a successful birth. I learned the hard way they are just about the most incompetent baby-making species on the planet, lose a vast majority of their offspring.

  14. Hah! Allan Lichtman (the renown predictor of prez races) just gave a tongue lashing to the CNN folk about the media being complicit in trying to oust biden while at the same time NOT calling out trump’s debate performance  “worse.” 

  15. To pass the time away I accidently found news18.com CNN on YT.  Nothing exciting because it is a camera set up to live stream the microphone stand and the reporters and it looks like some absolute far out magats with miss margie.  Cute signs, some obviously not created using a dictionary for backup. Some in crayon and other color markers.  Enough to gag a maggot.  Time to change the YT channel to something more intelligent.  I saw that Leon the rescued lobster is going to demonstrate how to communicate with humans, sounds better than what is going on at the prison waiting for bannon.

  16. We also serve as we only stand and wait.  The Chevron and Corner decision s are going to open the floodgates for ACA cases.

  17. here’s what lichtman said yesterday.  am surprised CNN invited him back since they seem to be hell bent on trashing biden 24/7 and not noting trump’s debate bad behavior.  hope I can find the one today where he tears into the media.

    Historian Allan Lichtman, who has successfully predicted past presidential election winners based on key characteristics, says that it would be a mistake for Democrats to replace President Joe Biden in the 2024 election.

  18. Roberts: Held: “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature  of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no  immunity for unofficial acts.”

  19. It’s clear that this debate bullshit is going to collapse (if it hasn’t already)
    They really thought they had him this time. But our Joe ain’t no one trick pony like Orange Lurch. And the mattering people absolutely have his back. 
    Debate should (O curséd word) be a cage match.  Two men on stage, one “announcer” The two men get two 2minute opening statements and then. with no interference from the announcer they discuss the issues for an hur.  Then another hour.

  20. Here’s a little more expansive discussion of passing the buck back to the District Courts:

    (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution.  And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct.  Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.  Pp. 30–32.
     
    (c) Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes, contending that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution.  But the text of the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted.  See Art. I, §3, cl. 7. Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position.  The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies concerned the checks available against a sitting President; they did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution.  Transforming the political process of impeachment into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of the Nation’s Government.  Pp. 32–34.
     
    (d) The Government takes a similarly broad view, contending that the President enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for any action. On its view, as-applied challenges in the course of the trial suffice to protect Article II interests, and review of a district court’s decisions on such challenges should be deferred until after trial.  But questions about whether the President may be held liable for particular actions, consistent with the separation of powers, must be addressed at the outset of a proceeding.  Even if the President were ultimately not found liable for certain official actions, the possibility of an extended proceeding alone may render him “unduly cautious in the 8 TRUMP v. UNITED STATES Syllabus discharge of his official duties.”  Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 752, n. 32. The Constitution does not tolerate such impediments to “the effective functioning of government.” Id., at 751. Pp. 34–37.
     
    (e) This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency?  In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.  Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.  But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.  That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.  Pp. 41–43.
    91 F. 4th 1173, vacated and remanded. 

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf 
    So it goes back for Chutkan and Cannon to determine what is and is not an official act. I think it’s hard to argue that this does anything other than insure  that there will be nothing of subsequence that will happen in the federal cases before November.

  21. The big story here is that the Democrats held the line and  have not folded.

    How now, lying Orang Cow?

    They may have inadvertently won one for the Gipper.

  22. how soon can the remands in this opinion officially get to judge chutkun and how soon can she act on them?

  23. Comments at Scotusblog on the dissent:

    From the Sotomayor dissent, which is joined by both Kagan and Jackson: Today’s ruling “reshapes the institution of the Presidency” and “makes a mockery of the principle . . . that no man is above the law.” The decision “gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former president from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.”

    Sotomayor does not use “respectfully” with “dissent” here or at the end of her dissent, which concludes: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent

    patd, great question about the remand to Chutkan. The answer ….”Not soon enough.” But look for an expedited briefing and argument schedule.

  24. roberts response on “no man above the law” point:

    Coming up short on reasoning, the dissents repeatedly level variations of the accusation that the Court has rendered the President “above the law.” See, e.g., post, at 1, 3, 11, 12, 21, 30 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); post, at 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). As before, that “rhetorically chilling” contention is “wholly unjustified.” Fitzg ld, 457 U. S., at 758, n. 41. Like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties. Accounting for that reality—and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives.

  25. Utilize  the phrase “A Bull Connor Firehose of Lies.”
    Firehoses have a vibrant history and imagery  in the south  
     

  26. The French elections aren’t going well for Macron.  This drift right in Europe due to resistance against immigrants doesn’t bode well for the future unless Biden is reelected. 

     

  27. Seeing a lot of bunk out there, such as reporting that Trump has absolute immunity for all official acts. This is wrong. He has absolute immunity for “core” presidential powers and there is only a PRESUMPTION of immunity for the rest of official acts. That presumption allows prosecutors to publicly present evidence at a hearing that is very likely comes before the election.

  28. The task for the court was to tie a knot in the process.  They’re just evil. 

  29. Trying to overturn an election is not an official act.  If MAGAt world thinks it is…well, Biden would be within his rights to do the same. Nope and nope.

    The Thomases are a corrupt couple.  Maybe a little art imitating life before the election is in order.  For some reason,  things seem more real when some folks see it in TV.

  30. Former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissman (MSNBC):

    “One thing that is clear, there will be a factual hearing that Judge Chutkan will be able to hold before the election. At least that is a way for the public to hear additional evidence from the likes of Vice President Pence, White House counsels, a whole series of witnesses and reams of evidence we haven’t seen that can now be heard and seen at that hearing”

  31. Maybe everyone ISN’T on Ozempic and these SCotUS decisions are making them sick to their stomach.
     
    It’s working for me!

  32. I think allowing Pence testimony at the evidentiary hearing is going to be one of the most eye-popping events. Not just his live words but he had to turn over all his diary notes of the events which have never been seen in public

  33. Not a lot of meat on the bone regarding what constitutes core presidential powers, official acts and unofficial acts. That results in case-by-case determinations.  This will be a very tedious process when acts of a president (e.g. removing classified documents from DC when a President leaves office) are called into question.  I haven’t read beyond the Syllabus and Court summary, so I’m not sure what the scope of the gray areas are, but after Citizens United I am very skeptical of the Court’s assessment of the impact of its opinions.

  34. The legal principle that everybody is entitled to their day in court, Roberts said, “doesn’t say unless somebody else had a day in court.”

    the “legal priniciple” not found in the Constitution that Roberts just made up

    i’ve heard people say things like “i’ll have my day in court” but not once ever in my respectably long life have i ever heard someone say “everybody is entitled to their day in court”

  35. Trump wasn’t President when he stole all those files that belonged to the Archives nor when he shared top secret info with third parties.

     

  36. I would think that Mrs. Thomas could be arrested.  Maybe a bargaining chip to get Mr. Thomas to step down? 

     

  37. So far what I think I’m reading is that the majority on the SC are basically tone deaf…
    am I reading that correctly?

  38. SC are basically tone deaf…

    Nah, that’s being too polite, they got an agenda, just couldn’t care less about impacts and criticism

    they claim to want less gov’t but also demand endless legal challenges to everything always (so regulations can’t be enforced ever)

    Good time to get a law degree

  39. thanks Bink…   no law degree for me.
     
    But doesn’t this also mean that if trump were to get elected for a second term that he can’t go after Biden?  Pumpkin mentioned that he thought what Biden did with the withdrawal from Afghanistan was criminal…

  40. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-immunity-supreme-court-decision-07-01-24/index.html
    “New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she plans to file articles of impeachment given the Supreme Court ruling on Monday that would give Donald Trump limited immunity against criminal prosecution based on his time in office.

    “Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return,” the Democratic congresswoman wrote on X.

    Ocasio-Cortez has been active in efforts to increase accountability from the Supreme Court and investigate potential ethics violations of its justices.”

  41. So Nixon was right then, when the President does it, it’s not illegal? 

  42. So the standard the Court set for Judge Chutkan to follow in defining an immune official act is the conduct must fall within “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.”

    Looked up “preclusive” and I still don’t know how it applies here: “preventing something from happening”. Synonyms: defending, defensive, deterrent, precautionary, preventative, and protective.

    Maybe it means the conduct has to be in defense of conclusive constitutional authority? That surely doesn’t include ordering Pence to block certification of an election without constitutional authority to do so.

  43. “I think allowing Pence testimony at the evidentiary hearing is going to be one of the most eye-popping events. Not just his live words but he had to turn over all his diary notes of the events which have never been seen in public”

    craig, wouldn’t this bit of confusion in the opinion throw a monkey wrench into us ever getting to see such evidence:

    On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution.  And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct.  Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.

  44. Looked up “preclusive” and I still don’t know how it applies here

     
    I was confounded by that word as well. Need to consult with the grammar police. I’m just a lowly English major.  

  45. craig,
    as to judge chutkun/prosecution being able to use the veep’s documents, by confusion in the opinion I meant this passage read in conjunction with the “Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial” admonition :

    We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

  46. I’m just a lowly English major.
     
    Ivy…  me too.  But hey…  if even people with law degrees are confused….   you and I don’t stand a chance. 

  47. cambridge dictionary defines “preclusive” as

    preventing something from happening, or making it impossible for it to happen 

     

    could roberts be hinting at presidential dereliction of duty as in, for instance, doing nothing and not stopping a mob from ransacking the capitol by not calling on military/law enforcement to quell the insurrection?

  48. The root clus  (a variant of clud) from Latin “to shut”. 

    recluse: person ‘shut’ back from civilization
    seclusion: a ‘shutting’ apart
    exclusion: a ‘shutting’ out
    conclusion: a thorough ‘shutting

    So a pre shutting , shitting before the fact?

  49. trump is totally going to round people up if he gets elected, after that decision
     
    Muslims first, LGBT next…
     
    Deport him, Biden, as an official act, just use an Oval Office lettehead

  50. Now, i see why Alito was flying the flag upside down: the country is under attack.  By him.

  51. Ivy and Renee, having both degrees didn’t help me understand WTH preclusive constitutional authority is. I suppose it could mean exercising government power that is assigned to one of the other branches?  So what to do?  Go look at the opinion and see what the justices tell us it means.
    Here’s Justice Jackson’s explanation, and astute recognition of the problem with the decision:

    That point bears emphasizing.  Immunity can issue for Presidents under the majority’s model even for unquestionably and intentionally egregious criminal behavior. Regardless of the nature or the impact of the President’s criminal conduct, so long as he is committing crimes “pursuant to the powers invested exclusively in him by the Constitution,” ante, at 7, or as needed “to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution,” ante, at 14, he is likely to be 10 TRUMP v. UNITED STATES JACKSON, J., dissenting deemed immune from prosecution. 5

    Ultimately, the majority’s model simply sets the criminal law to one side when it comes to crimes allegedly committed by the President.  Before accountability can be sought or rendered, the Judiciary serves as a newfound special gatekeeper, charged not merely with interpreting the law but with policing whether it applies to the President at all. Also, under the new Presidential accountability model, the starting presumption is that the criminal law does not apply to Presidents, no matter how obviously illegal, harmful, or unacceptable a President’s official behavior might be. Regardless of all that, courts must now ensure that a former President is not held accountable for any criminal conduct he engages in while he is on duty, unless his conduct consists primarily (and perhaps solely) of unofficial acts. 
    ____________________________________ 
    5  To fully appreciate the oddity of making the criminal immunity determination turn on the character of the President’s responsibilities, consider what the majority says is one of the President’s “conclusive and preclusive” prerogatives: “ ‘[t]he President’s power to remove . . . those who wield executive power on his behalf.’ ”  Ante, at 8 (quoting Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 204 (2020)). While the President may have the authority to decide to remove the Attorney General, for example, the question here is whether the President has the option to remove the Attorney General by, say, poisoning him to death.  Put another way, the issue here is not whether the President has exclusive removal power, but whether a generally applicable criminal law prohibiting murder can restrict how the President exercises that authority.

    Short answer on the meaning of preclusive constitutional authority – shit the president can do without review of the legislature and (now) courts.

  52. It’s clear that Biden is going to have to break some eggs because the fat is in the fire.

    House, SCOTUS, former Pres—we’re in the middle of a treasonous coup d’etat.

  53. Waiting for a new Randy Rainbow on recent rulings and channeling Roger Miller:
     
    SCOTUS for sale or rent.  Crazy rules. Three dissent.  

  54. POTUS Joe now has free rein to do whatever the hell he wants.   Go for it.  Make Orange Adolf and his followers shake in their jack boots.

  55. First off, listening to NPR, and reading WaPo there is more than a little hyperventilating. Second, we are seeing something that is all too frequent with this court, sloppy writing and thinking. By everybody concerned. Somebody pointed out Roberts, “day in court” cliche, Sotomayor did the same thing when she used the “above the law” cliche. Sloppy sloppy. 
    So what has changed? The President is immune for official acts, That has been the traditional belief. He is not immune for anything else. Which is what Trump ask for. 
    So why the hyperventilating. 
    The Supreme court did what we knew they were going to do, delay. 
    One thought, Judge Chutkan is going to get her name forever in legal history books. She gets to write the first rules and guidelines for determining Presidential authority. Ha, that is her job for the rest of the year.
    Jack

  56. Read some more, sigh, 
    For the last 40 years, since the Bork nomination, we have been nominating justices who haven’t proved their intellectual rigor for fear the opposition will find something they wrote that can be considered  offensive. We are paying the price. The dissents written today were more political screeds then they were legal dissents. 
    Another thing for the younger generation to put in the Boomer obituary. 
    Jack

  57. Biden, at the White House moments ago:

    “This nation is founded on the principle that there are no kings in America .. no one is above the law, not even the President of the US … [but] for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are almost no limits on what POTUS can do.”

    “Nearly 4 years ago, my predecessor sent a violent mob to the Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power. We all saw it … now the man who sent that mob is facing potential conviction. The American people deserve to have an answer in the courts before the election.”

    “I know I will respect the limits of president power … but any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law … may God bless you all, and may God help preserve our democracy.”

  58. President Biden:

    “Now, the American people will have to do what the court should have been willing to do but will not. The American people have to render a judgment about Donald Trump’s behavior. The American people must decide whether Donald Trump’s assault on our democracy on January 6 makes him unfit for public office, the highest office in the land. The American people must decide if Trump’s embrace of violence to preserve his power is acceptable. Perhaps most importantly, American people must decide they want to entrust the presidency to Donald Trump, once again, now knowing he’ll be more emboldened to do whatever he pleases, whenever he wants to do it.”

  59. So what has changed? The President is immune for official acts, That has been the traditional belief. He is not immune for anything else. Which is what Trump ask for. So why the hyperventilating. 

    No, you and Roberts just made that up, it’s not in the Constitution, THAT’S why the hyperventilating: they are constructing self-serving legal frameworks out of thin air

    A President can now round people up and assassinate political opponents with impunity, THAT IS WHY the hyperventilating

    SCotUS just blew up the country, THAT IS WHY the hyperventilating

  60. Maybe it’s all well and good if your President has passed the character test. Donald Trump has flunked the character test many times over. People have to vote for character.

  61. Padlock the building and ask for the robes back.  Keeping it open is an administrative function, not a judicial one, assholes

  62. John W. Dean
    @JohnWDean

    “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” — Richard Nixon, 1974

    Affirmed, US Supreme Court, 2024
    Jul 1, 2024

  63. “Deport him, Biden, as an official act, just use an Oval Office lettehead”

    bink, may I respectfully rewrite your call to arms, now that the current prez can take with impunity any official act that he thinks protects the country, to read:

    Biden, as an official act, deport him on national security grounds or at the very least order the IRS to initiate an income tax fraud case against him or all of the above. forthwith!

  64. bink, may I respectfully rewrite your call to arms

    i made the opposite of a “call to arms”, i suggest Biden use the perfectly lawful means Roberts just created for him

  65. Because a pack of entitled white men and a handmaiden. Thomas has no explanation.

  66. We wouldn’t lie to you about the history of “perfidious” – even though the word itself suggests deceitfulness. The modern English meaning of “perfidious” remains faithful to that of its Latin ancestor, perfidus,which means “faithless.” English speakers have used “perfidious” to mean “treacherous” since at least 1572. One of the earliest known uses of the term can be found in Act V, scene iii of Shakespeare’sAll’s Well That Ends Well: the “perfidious slave” Parolles is thought to be an unreliable witness; he’ll say whatever suits his purpose, whether true or not. In contemporary usage, “perfidious” not only implies treacherousness, but an inability to be reliable or honorable.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfidious#:~:text=treacherous%20implies%20readiness%20to%20betray%20trust%20or%20confidence.&text=perfidious%20adds%20to%20faithless%20the,incapacity%20for%20fidelity%20or%20reliability.
     

  67. BTW
    If you read the link 
    You will notice that a very liberal court in the Nixon v Fitzgerald decided on civil immunity almost exactly what the Roberts court did on criminal.
    They did so using a lot of common law and traditional practices rather than written constitution. As my professor on American government 200 pointed out there is a lot more to the constitution than that little booklet that the congressman carries around.
    Jack

  68. John Paul Stevens’s prophetic dissent in Bush v Gore. (Btw, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett were all on Bush’s Florida-recount team.)

  69. It is a simple ballot choice: do you want criminality to continue in the highest office? 

  70. Listen, Jack, just because you have no skin in the game doesn’t mean there is no skin and there is no game.  Glad you’re unconcerned 🫡 

  71. John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett were all on Bush’s Florida-recount team.

    Tells you all you needed to know. 

  72. I wonder if Biden would take the step of nominating four more Supreme justices and see what the Senate would do with that bombshell.

     

  73. Bink
    Ain’t nobody here got skin in the game.
    I suspect it is treating it like a game that got all the stupid opinions and dissents that have been coming out of the Supreme Court this year.  I knew Thomas, Alito and company were light in the intellectual department it took today to realize the liberal side was just as bad.
    Jack
     

  74. Now i know how Biden felt at the debate

    Jack says there’s nothing to worry about guys, we can all relax 👍

  75. That’s the way Bink just keep whacking on that strawman. I guess that is the game you were talking about. When you get serious let me know.
    Because I was.
    With that I’m out of here. See You all Sunday.
    Jack

  76. the contrarianism for the sake of it is getting old, man, especially in an election year
     
    ask me how i know 😊 ✌️🇺🇸

    …and i would make the effort to articulate exactly how some of us, here, do have a personal interest in contemporary political developments, but their stories aren’t mine to tell.

    You see, the realist in me doesn’t want Biden to actually exploit the impunity that SCotUS just arbitrarily granted him with the interest of protecting trump in the short-term, because Biden doing so would very likely upend the foundation of our entire government. That same realist understands that trump will definitely exploit that power because be has already tried: GA electioneering, draconian border policies that offended both of us, banning Muslim travel, banning transgender service, et flippin’ cetera…

    Don’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining, or more appropriately, watch someone else piss on my head and tell me it’s raining

  77. Military servicepeople are famously directed to disobey unlawful orders. SCotUS just ruled there’s no such thing if they come from CiC
     
    That’s asinine

    Sorry, that thought just gave me a shudder 😨

    ok, pardon me, get hyped 🇺🇸

  78. Roberts’ ruling directly contradicts the impeachment clause which expressly states a PotUS can be “convicted of” (and therefore capable of committing) “high CRIMES, BRIBERY, TREASON, and misdemeanors
     
    i don’t see how this doesn’t invalidate the entire document
     
    That may be all, folks 🤷‍♂️ 🐷 👋

Leave a Reply