The Courts (not specific to either party)

[ZRod]

5 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

That gets sticky in a situation such as the one we went through only three years ago.  Trump could have called out the military to back his coup attempt and as we've seen, his sycophants in Congress would never impeach him.  Next time, if he's elected and his Project 2025 comes to fruition he'll have vetted loyalists to do his bidding.  If an authoritarian we're to pull it off he'd never become a normal citizen.  In our history we've never had a president need immunity from breaking the law while in office.  There wouldn't be a never ending load of cases.  That hasn't happened before.  Frivolous cases would be bounced immediately.  

 

 

No president has ever called the military to back his coup, but you're talking hypotheticals too...

[commando]

16 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

That gets sticky in a situation such as the one we went through only three years ago.  Trump could have called out the military to back his coup attempt and as we've seen, his sycophants in Congress would never impeach him.  Next time, if he's elected and his Project 2025 comes to fruition he'll have vetted loyalists to do his bidding.  If an authoritarian we're to pull it off he'd never become a normal citizen.  In our history we've never had a president need immunity from breaking the law while in office.  There wouldn't be a never ending load of cases.  That hasn't happened before.  Frivolous cases would be bounced immediately.  

 

 

well.....Nixon tried to say that.

[Scarlet]

14 minutes ago, commando said:

well.....Nixon tried to say that.

 He did but that didn't work out so well. 

 

In fact this court is going to have to once again ignore precedent if it decides to grant wide ranging immunity. Precedent set from the Nixon example. 

 

https://www.justsecurity.org/44264/supreme-court-justices-president-indicted/

 

“The dissents are wide of the mark to the extent that they imply that the Court today recognizes sweeping immunity for a President for all acts. The Court does no such thing. The immunity is limited to civil damages claims. Moreover, a President, like Members of Congress, judges, prosecutors, or congressional aides — all having absolute immunity — are not immune for acts outside official duties. Ante at 457 U. S. 753-755. Even the broad immunity of the Speech and Debate Clause has its limits.[fn3]”

[fn3] “In United States v. Brewster, 408 U. S. 501 (1972), we held that the Speech and Debate Clause does not prohibit prosecution of a Senator for accepting a bribe designed to influence his legislative acts.”. -  Justice Burger

“But there is no contention that the President is immune from criminal prosecution in the courts under the criminal laws enacted by Congress, or by the States, for that matter. Nor would such a claim be credible. " - Justice White

 

[Scarlet]

37 minutes ago, ZRod said:

No president has ever called the military to back his coup, but you're talking hypotheticals too...

 

You're putting it past Trump to do that especially if he doesn't have sane people around him?  That's some pretty thin ice for democracy to skate on especially if the court rules in his favor on immunity.  He'll be even more emboldened next time without the possibility of any consequences.  How about another hypothetical.  One which really isn't hypothetical since his minions are tits deeps in it in Arizona.  What about a president and his allies putting forth a slate of false electors?  

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Scarlet said:

 

You're putting it past Trump to do that especially if he doesn't have sane people around him?  That's some pretty thin ice for democracy to skate on especially if the court rules in his favor on immunity.  He'll be even more emboldened next time without the possibility of any consequences.  How about another hypothetical.  One which really isn't hypothetical since his minions are tits deeps in it in Arizona.  What about a president and his allies putting forth a slate of false electors?  

False electors can be arrested and imprisoned. They are not federal officers.

 

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, ZRod said:

False electors can be arrested and imprisoned.

 

And pardoned by the person with absolute immunity.

[ZRod]

7 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

And pardoned by the person with absolute immunity.

Not in a state trial.

[Scarlet]

8 hours ago, ZRod said:

False electors can be arrested and imprisoned. They are not federal officers.

 

Federal officers can absolutely be charged in the conspiracy.  Trump's not out of the woods yet in the example of Arizona.  The prosecutor may have several reasons for not charging yet, one being that he may be using the chargers against the other co-conspirators to flip on Trump.  

[teachercd]

4 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

Federal officers can absolutely be charged in the conspiracy.  Trump's not out of the woods yet in the example of Arizona.  The prosecutor may have several reasons for not charging yet, one being that he may be using the chargers against the other co-conspirators to flip on Trump.  

This seems like a logical move and one that could work.

[ZRod]

30 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

Federal officers can absolutely be charged in the conspiracy.  Trump's not out of the woods yet in the example of Arizona.  The prosecutor may have several reasons for not charging yet, one being that he may be using the chargers against the other co-conspirators to flip on Trump.  

Again, it's a state case. Not federal.

[knapplc]

Very well said. This is a corrupt Supreme Court. They barely touched on the only question they should have been considering.

 

 

 

Here's the whole thread:

 

As with the three-hour argument in Trump v. Anderson, a disconcertingly precious little of the two-hour argument today was even devoted to the specific and only question presented for decision.

The Court and the parties discussed everything but the specific question presented.

That question is simply whether a former President of the United States may be prosecuted for attempting to remain in power notwithstanding the election of his successor by the American People.

thereby also depriving his lawfully elected successor of the powers of the presidency to which that successor became entitled upon his rightful election by the American People -- and preventing the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history.

It is not even arguably a core power or function of the President of the United States to ensure the fairness, accuracy, and integrity of a presidential election.

Let alone is it a core power or function of the President of the United States to ensure the proper certification of the next president by the Congress of the United States. Neither of these is a power or function of the president at all.

In fact, the Framers of the Constitution well understood the enormous potential for self-interested conflict were the President to have a role in these fundamental constitutional functions.

Consequently, they purposely and pointedly withheld from the President any role in these fundamental constitutional functions.

To whatever extent the Framers implicitly provided in the Executive any role whatsoever in these fundamental constitutional functions, it was a limited role for the Executive Branch,

through the Department of Justice, to inquire into allegations of fraud in presidential elections and ensure that the election was free, fair, and accurate.

The former president’s Department of Justice did just that and found that there was no fraud sufficient to draw into question the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The former president of course has refused to this day to accept that finding by not only his own Department of Justice, but also countless others of his closest advisors.

Whether undertaken in his or her “official,” “candidate,” or “personal” capacity, a President of the United States has never been and can never be immune from prosecution (after leaving office),

for having attempted to remain in power notwithstanding the election of that President’s successor by the American People.

Consequently, there is no reason whatsoever for the Supreme Court to remand to the lower courts for a determination of which of the alleged criminal acts might have been personal and which might have been official.

Neither is a clear statement from Congress that a president is subject to prosecution under the statutes with which the former president has been charged necessary in this particular case.

As applied to the former president for the criminal conduct with which he has been charged, there can be no question but that Congress intended a President of the United States to come within the ambit of the statutory offenses with which he has been charged.

For the same reason, it would be ludicrous to contend that the former president was not on sufficient notice that if he committed the criminal acts charged, he would be subject to criminal prosecution by the United States of America.

To hold otherwise would make a mockery out of the “plain statement” rule.

[BigRedBuster]

So, I wonder if we are going to get a ruling on this today.

[TGHusker]

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, I wonder if we are going to get a ruling on this today.

Some have written that the ruling will not come until the end of the court calendar - end of June    This should be an emergency decision.  

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Some have written that the ruling will not come until the end of the court calendar - end of June    This should be an emergency decision.  

Yeah, I've seen that.  The conservative justices want to delay it as long as possible so it further delays some of his trials so they aren't decided before the election.

 

Yes, this should be the most important decision they are deciding and it should be done immediately.  

 

Watching the SCOTUS recently drills home the opinion I've had for a long time.  The SC is best when it's a 5-4 split.  One side having a large majority on the SC is a really bad thing.

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

5 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

 

Yeah, I've seen that.  The conservative justices want to delay it as long as possible so it further delays some of his trials so they aren't decided before the election.

How do you know this?