SCOTUS thread

And it begins.  The can of worms (snakes is a better term) has been opened.  When the SCOTUS made this horrible decision, they let lose all restraint on an evil person who sits in the White House.  

I doubt that this verse is in the trump bible  Proverbs 29:2

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people mourn.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fake-electors-scheme-supreme-court-1919928


Donald Trump Says Fake Electors Scheme Was 'Official Act'


A Donald Trump lawyer has said that an alleged fake elector scheme was an "official act" and so should be immune from prosecution in Trump's federal election interference case.

Speaking to CNN's Kaitlan Collins on Monday night, Will Scharf, an attorney for the former president, laid out the next steps for special counsel Jack Smith's case following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that former presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts but no immunity for private acts.

In a federal indictment filed in August, Trump is facing four charges pertaining to his alleged attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. He has denied all wrongdoing.

Trump's team is alleged to have created and submitted fraudulent certificates to falsely claim Trump had won the Electoral College vote in certain states to disrupt President Joe Biden's victory.

Speaking to Collins, Scharf said that Smith's "case should be dismissed" because it concerns official acts not private ones.

"We've admitted consistently that there are acts alleged in the indictment that would constitute private conduct but we believe that if the official conduct, the immune acts in the indictment are stripped away, that Jack Smith doesn't have a case, that this case should be dismissed on that basis," he said.

When pressed by Collins whether using a "false slates of electors" would constitute enough for a trial, Scharf denied that the Trump team had used false slates and said using "alternate slates" was an "official act."  He said: "We would say alternate slates of electors and as we argued before the Supreme Court, alternate slates of electors have been a method used by previous presidents."
Click to expand...

 
Lorewarn said:
Your inability to connect the dots and see the forest is, as always, quite disheartening.
Click to expand...
You asked a question and I answered it.   What dots would you like connected that pertain to the yes/no question you asked?  
 

it’s also weird how you continually try and make things personal  :(   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TGHusker said:
And it begins.  The can of worms (snakes is a better term) has been opened.  When the SCOTUS made this horrible decision, they let lose all restraint on an evil person who sits in the White House.  

I doubt that this verse is in the trump bible  Proverbs 29:2

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people mourn.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fake-electors-scheme-supreme-court-1919928


Donald Trump Says Fake Electors Scheme Was 'Official Act'
Click to expand...
He is going to try to make everything an official act. Taking the documents and giving them to Russia was all an official act also. 

 
One of the most poignant parts of the dissenting opinion:

"Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force. Under scrutiny, its arguments crumble. To start, the majority's broad "official acts" immunity is inconsistent with text, history, and established understandings of the President's role. 

...

The main takeaway of today's decision is that all of a President's official acts, defined without regard to motive or intent, are entitled to immunity that is "at least . . . presumptive," and quite possibly "absolute." Whenever the President wields the enormous power of his office, the majority says, the criminal law (at least presumptively) cannot touch him. This official-acts immunity has "no firm grounding in constitutional text, history, or precedent."

Big ole thanks to the activist court for what ultimately functionally plays out as a horrifying unconstitutional amendment to the constitution that we can only hope and pray that no president ever exploits (spoiler warning: they will).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221 said:
I’m certainly fine with SCOTUS term limits if and only if Congress also puts in term limits for themselves.   Otherwise I’m out. 
Click to expand...




Both is fine. I would also stop doing 2-year terms for House. That's too short. Maybe 6 years is too longer for Senators, but I don't know the logic behind either. Alternating for each state makes sense, so for Senate 4 year alternating terms would work. 4 years would work for the House too. 

Anyhow, make 12 years the max you can serve in the Senate and House. If you want to serve longer, you switch chambers. 24 is the absolute max you can serve. 

For Supreme Court, make it 16 year appointments and you only get 1.

 
Moiraine said:
Both is fine. I would also stop doing 2-year terms for House. That's too short. Maybe 6 years is too longer for Senators, but I don't know the logic behind either. Alternating for each state makes sense, so for Senate 4 year alternating terms would work. 4 years would work for the House too. 

Anyhow, make 12 years the max you can serve in the Senate and House. If you want to serve longer, you switch chambers. 24 is the absolute max you can serve. 

For Supreme Court, make it 16 year appointments and you only get 1.
Click to expand...
That seems reasonable 

 
Moiraine said:
Both is fine. I would also stop doing 2-year terms for House. That's too short. Maybe 6 years is too longer for Senators, but I don't know the logic behind either. Alternating for each state makes sense, so for Senate 4 year alternating terms would work. 4 years would work for the House too. 

Anyhow, make 12 years the max you can serve in the Senate and House. If you want to serve longer, you switch chambers. 24 is the absolute max you can serve. 

For Supreme Court, make it 16 year appointments and you only get 1.
Click to expand...






For the House and Senate, four and four is fine. One a year from the presidential election, one a year before.

 
Back
Top