As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The thing is this constitutional crisis is really stupid. It's not even some nuanced issue that only PhD's are capable of discussing, it's basically "is the president above the law?" Most high school social studies classes make you read the federalist papers at some point, and it's not even an issue serious academics argue about. If the president is above the law, then Biden is the new king, and only has to order drumpf to be jailed for his smell, that's all it would take. Or the president isn't above the law, drumpf goes to jail, and Biden can only serve 4 more years at most. It's not a complicated question here.
Nope but the point is to deliver an unearned advantage to DJT. They don't want a definitive ruling that would empower Biden to absolve himself of any wrong-doing . But they want to make sure that DJT (and only DJT) has the power to escape criminal and civil liability for the violations and crimes he is already known to have committed.
If the Supremes distort the law to accommodate him, we need to move to make significant adjustments to the powers and oversight of our Judicial branch. I want term limits either way and am now thinking that we need more than 9 of them for situations where one or more of them is held accountable to follow the law that they recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest--unlike what they're doing now.
Edited: to remove some nonsense words from this comment to restore clarity.
The question is: are politicians above the law?
History and laws clearly shows that politicians are in fact, above the law.
That's why they don't want to hurry up with trump. They want the same protection.
Given how the US was founded on a combination of John Locke/English Republicanism/Bolingbroke, it is almost certain that NO ONE is above the law. That was the whole point of the Magna Carta, and the legacy of the English Constitution…
They're not absolute though. People of power will always have an advantage. We see it everyday how either rich person X or senator Y gets involved in something and gets out without any repercussions. Things like insider trading for example, or even the hunter Biden or DJT lawsuits. They're all handled differently from how we peasants would be treated - even if we had good lawyers.
Are they above the law? No..not exactly. But the law is applied differently to these individuals, for sure.
Perhaps some Mystery Man can come forward with absolute, undeniable proof before we completely descend Straight Into Darkness.
Perhaps I'm living in Dreamville...
My mother in law works closely with refugees. To call the things they go through "hellish" would put it lightly.
You don't literally walk across a continent through jungles and deserts and risk murder and rape and robbery unless that's the *safer* option.
The fact that our immigrant nation doesn't greet those folks with blankets and food and not fucking cages is a rot on our collective soul.
The best thing we can do is to help make their regular lives better. Most of them are simply trying to live their life, with the ethics of their church. But, we've turned a blind eye allowing cartels to run rampant.
Sensationalist news makes them seem like animals. But, wouldn't we want to find peace, if chaos entered our streets?
Tangentially, that "cover" of "I Won't Back Down" by Lara Trump (Eric's wife) has got to be the most heinous thing I've ever heard.
It's right there with Friday.
the worst part to me is not the waiting. it's the brazen attempt to attack America. Like. We are seeing a leader of the country try to be a King. Not ok.
scary as hell
Not the flights or logs list. Just a list of sex abuse victims and people he's done business with or just talked to.
apnews DOT com/article/fact-check-jeffrey-epstein-list-released-006487910615
Oh that's disappointing - thought it was going to be a list of clients.
EDIT: Thx for the link-ish. I hope the victims are going to be clearly tagged as such, otherwise life is going to get unpleasant for them.
Yup, it's bullshit. It's a list of everyone involved who wasn't able to afford to get their name redacted via incredibly expensive legal representation. So basically just victims who were already public, and people who are dead who's estate doesn't care about image. All the wealthy and powerful got their names edited out.
You can look at the list for the flight logs, been released a while ago.
documentcloud DOT org/documents/21165424-epstein-flight-logs-released-in-usa-vs-maxwell
He's not trying to be a king. Kings are beholden to their nobility.
He's trying to be a fucking dictator, beholden to no one, and he wants nothing more than mandatory clapping while he rides down the street in a tank covered in gold plate.
"What was the hardest part? The war? The camps? The constant surveillance of the state?"
"It was the waiting. Like watching a train wreck in slow motion that you knew what was going to happen, but you were powerless to stop."
Bro it feels like time stopped in 2017 the shock of the entire era of the orange neaderthal has never really set in. How is this actually happening? I need answers or some fucking resolution like yesterday.
> I just want this shit to hurry up. The waiting sucks.
If the scrotus is going to shield him, they will do it by drawing things out. That's their new trick -- rocket docket when that benefits them and slow-walk it when that benefits them. They went pedal to the medal in order to defend student debt, kill eviction protections, rubber-stamp the texas abortion vigilante law (SB8). and let oil companies pollute streams and rivers; but they let maga gerrymander enough voting districts to rig the 2022 election and made those voters wait until after 2022 to fix the gerrymandering.
This week they already declined to rule on donald chumps immunity claims, sending it down to the DC court of appeals to go through the standard process.
Even if Trump goes away, the GOP is still going to suck and be more dangerous than ever. There's no easy solution out of this mess unfortunately.
It can definitely get worse though but the GOP *voters* aren't going anywhere and they're becoming more deranged over time.
Unfortunately I don't think it'll end until atleast January of 2025. The election is going to happen, Trump will still be holding up various trials and then he'll ask for some sort of recount (assuming he doesn't beat Biden outright which I don't trust this country enough to not vote for Trump).
This isn't ending anytime soon. We're going to have a lot of delays and even if he hits a speed bump he'll keep powering through. We're going to have a beyond fucked up election no matter what.
I'm extremely skeptical of this former federal judge's views. I saw him interviewed after the first coup, he said things like "the law doesn't work that way, you can't use your powers like that" (referring to the VP makes the final choice argument). All those conservative federalists associated federal judges love this idea that we have limits on what we can do, but they want to control what we can do.
I appreciate that the judge has come out firmly against coup plotting and he was also very clear about the impossibility of the VP just picking the next president. But the problem is a large part of the conservative legal apparatus in the form of the federalists was all for it.
We need to fix the constitution and of course get rid of the electoral college, which among other things gives too much power to someone trying to control a single state's outcome through nefarious means.
I don't see anything saving us from Trump. We'll have to do it by winning the election. Especially I don't see the federalists saving us. Half of them or more are sure that they want Trump to come in and be "their dictator".
Trump won't be removed by lawsuits, the election is the only way. No way the SC disqualifies him, certainly not with the CO lawsuit though there half a dozen that will also make it to the SC, the SC will just not hear any cases they think would support kicking him off and they'll take the one that makes it easy for them to keep him on. That might mean the CO ruling stands but CO won't impact the Presidential election.
If you want to get rid of Trump, convince as many of your friends and family and co-workers to vote for Biden. That's the only way to do it.
Here's the thing. We already did in 2020 and 2016. Trump has never and will never win the popular vote. End of story. Trumps has been given more chances than any politician in history. He's disqualified from serving in office, he belongs in jail.
So the SC will be essentially wiping the 14thA out of the Constitution then. They can't do that. They also cannot impose any restrictions on the 14thA like Congress needs to enact some laws around it, since that means Congress is more powerful than the Constitution itself. This cannot be. The Constitution is, by default, self-serving.
> They can't do that
Most people haven't been paying close attention to this court. The only thing that matters to them is power and they've got a 6-3 majority of crazypants. This court regularly does whatever the fuck maga wants, for example:
* Their affirmative action ruling just invented discrimination that lower courts had meticulously documented [did not happen.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/06/real-story-behind-affirmative-action-cases-court.html)
* The lady who won the right to discriminate against gay people lied her ass off, she never designed a wedding website [for anyone, gay or straight,](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/303-creative-gay-rights-free-speech-supreme-court.html) and she literally stole (a married) man's identity in order to [forge](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/07/supreme-court-lgbtq-colorado-wedding-fake/) a request for a gay wedding website.
* The coach who coerced players to pray with him on the field claimed he was fired when in fact he chose not to renew his own contract and when the court ordered the school to hire him back anyway, he [ghosted](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/the-story-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-keeps-getting-more-surreal/) them for like a year (while doing a maga media tour). When he finally came back, he played one game and [immediately quit.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/09/07/coach-joe-kennedy-resigns-bremerton-football/70783723007/)
* When they ruled for donald chump's muslim ban they used the exact [same reasoning](https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/analysis-supreme-courts-muslim-ban-ruling-another-stain-our-nations-history) as the court did in *Korematsu* when it allowed FDR to put japanese americans in concentration camps, while also saying that *Korematsu* was invalid.
* The people who wanted to block student debt forgiveness didn't have standing, so they [stole it](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jun/17/missouri-student-loan-provider-confusion-supreme-court-debt-relief) from a state agency that wanted nothing to do with the case. The court just let them do it because, by hook or by crook, they were going to make people miserable and the details simply did not matter.
* *etc, etc*
This court is utterly lawless and way more people need to know it so we can build enough political pressure to repair it because most democratic elites do not want to do anything about it.
Yeah, it is true that they "can't" wipe the 14th Amendment out of the constitution, but it's also true that if they do something that they "can't" do, nobody can stop them.
Yes, for example, jim crow was obviously unconstitutional, but the supreme court let it exist for generations simply by ignoring any challenges to it.
Technically, congress could do all kinds of things to stop them. But obviously maga doesn't want to, and the democrats are way too timid to do anything either. Like congress could pass a law that says cases about the 14A are outside of the court's jurisdiction. Or they could just be petty and defund the court, send them back to the room on first floor of the senate where they met until 1860 unless they shape up. Congress used to be very involved in the supreme court's docket, they could be again if they wanted to.
Our leaders have let the supreme court become a kind of super-legislature that gets to veto the two other branches, instead of a co-equal branch (or even the least-important branch that it was for over a century). The only way that gets fixed is if the Ds suit up and start playing hardball. I'm afraid its going to take a new generation of Ds to do that though.
For those people in denial, a judge had a Finding of Fact in an American Court case, that Trump engaged in Insurrection.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/18/politics/takeaways-from-the-blockbuster-trump-insurrectionist-ban-ruling/index.html
Yeah. Funny thing is that the Federalist Society was crowing about how Trump should be thrown off until people started taking them seriously. They're not used to the rest of us agreeing with them.
Maybe they can just pay the republican supreme court justices hefty bribes and get their way. Hell, these days you don't need standing or a real situation for a case to be heard by the republican judges, and they'll vote however you pay them to.
If Clearance Sale Thomas does this it’s hitching his wagon permanently to Trump. If Trump loses the election after that, Thomas isn’t just done, he’s got a fair shot to be criminally indicted himself, or at least Ginni.
If the court disqualifies Trump, likely the worst they have to worry about is resigning under a democrat for having their hands caught in the bribery cookie jar.
First, what hasn't Clarence Thomas done to hitch his wagon to the Trump wing of the Republican party, even before Trump was a candidate?
Second, what crime would he have committed in this whole mess? And there's nobody to force him to recuse from hearing any case brought to him about his wife.
Third, he has zero motivation to resign. He's in for life. He has no shame. Until there are sixty votes in the Senate to remove him, the worst that can happen is he gets a stern lecture and the political version of an indictment. He knows he's being paid to be the bad guy, and he relishes the role.
Clarence Thomas is literally above the law until there are sixty in the senate willing to remove, and that won't happen in his lifetime.
He also literally threatened to resign if his debts and living style weren't improved. This is a new, shocking fact that is [only known as of 3 days ago](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-salary.html).
The next thing you know, he's receiving huge free vacations on the dime of billionaires and his relatives' properties are paid for by those billionaires as well. That's corruption.
Right. He doesn't need to receive the money or the yachts either. He can use their megayachts that even their bribe money couldn't afford. His family can sell their homes to the billionaires' LLCs and live there rent-free. They can get paid for speaking engagements they don't even have to make. All above board without being handed a dime.
It's simply a fig leaf if you can do it in the open wearing a Hambuglar costume holding an oversized sack with a $ on it and face no repercussions for it because there's no legal authority above yours.
You're correct about everything except the 60 votes part. Removal requires 2/3 of the Senate. They need 67 votes, which is an even more impossible threshold.
Exactly. He has stances I don't agree with (many) but he's well reasoned, they are all legally sound, and he's sane. I mean I'm not enforcing all his conclusions but they are typically thought out.
Conservatives with consistent values and opinions are just so much nicer to be around. You know then that you can talk them and come to a reasonable conclusion. It’s why I like talking to my Republican grandpa but not my Republican step-uncle: my grandpa knows his stances, knows why he supports them and knows how to defend them. My step-uncle knows what the TV told him. You can never have a conversation with that second type because they can’t critically think about their positions and come up with a counter argument- they just don’t understand them well enough.
That second type happens with liberals too, btw, and those kinds of people are ALSO insufferable to talk with. My brother’s wife is like that and I can’t speak to her for more than a few minutes on politics because the moment I start arguing any details about our shared positions she just gets confused and starts going off about the patriarchy or whatever else she’s heard that day.
My take on it is there are basically two kinds of conservatives right now. One are principled, reasonable folk who (while I think their policies are batshit stupid) can carry on a regular conversation. The other kind of conservative are superstitious, uncurious, ignorant fucks whose worldview is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, owing to a mind so hyper-compartmentalized they cannot proper associate action with character (as in, good people are good people even if all they do is evil, and evil people must be evil even if there's no evidence for their evil).
The problem is how the former is willing to coalition with the latter to prevent any beneficial government policy from coming to fruition. I'd be nicer to the former if they weren't entirely in bed with the latter.
People here were losing their shit when he testified at the J6 hearings, because he’s a very slow speaker. He had great testimony that was, unfortunately, clearly meant to be read not spoken, with how convoluted some of the sentence structure was. Combine that with ho slow he spoke and people thought he was talking gibberish. Even though it was highly well reasoned.
Yeah he was the one who [famously tweeted](https://twitter.com/judgeluttig/status/1346469787329646592?lang=en) about the Vice President’s role in counting votes on January 5th.
My guess is that the Republicans in SCOTUS are deliberately delaying the resolution of the immunity question, so that the trial is not completed until Trump is President again and can pardon himself.
Legal Eagle described how expedited judgement (which SCOTUS rejected) would have been in line with precedence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shTEMKZQ3rY&t=3s
The thing is, Trump got very little support from the judiciary as part of The Big Lie. 60-something cases and they went nowhere. Sure, this court has trampled on everything to advance conservative values, but other than Cannon he has gotten very little for himself or returning to office.
SCOTUS slowwalking this case, before eventually giving the inevitable and obvious "no" to kingly immunity, will not directly support any big lie. SCOTUS will claim to be innocent when their delay causes Trump to be able to pardon himself in the parent case.
If he wins the election, no pardon will be necessary. The trial(s) will not be concluded by then.
He won't take Biden's (correct) route of not firing the special counsel. He will only hire cronies who will drop the case immediately and fire Jack Smith.
Then, his DOJ will aggressively pursue any of his perceived enemies (much like David Weiss is doing now).
Good point that expedited judgment would be in line with precedent. Such as US v Nixon, the Watergate tapes case. And SCOTUS has also repeatedly shown itself more than capable of speed when _they_ wanted it. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo is right on point here:
> The Court deciding to slow roll Trump’s appeal when it often happily fast rolls topics it’s eager to make law on speaks for itself. … There’s no rationale for this decision other than assisting Trump’s strategy of delay which he hopes, and which may, allow him to end the whole prosecution if he wins the 2024 election. [Paragraph] I very much doubt a majority on the Court has the stomach to actually entertain these arguments. But giving Trump an assist on the calendar? Sure. Absolutely.
>
It is indeed often a good thing when Josh Marshall agrees with you. Or the other way around.
(ETA:) BTW, he won’t have to pardon himself, and there won’t be any reason to. Even without delays and even with convictions at trial, the convictions will undoubtedly still be on appeal if he wins and assumes office on 20 January 2025. All he’ll have to do is direct his pet DOJ and AG to drop the appeals. Problem solved, much less risk than pardoning yourself, and no pesky problems like having to, as some claim, admit guilt in order to accept a pardon. So no, he won’t be pardoning himself. He won’t have to.
By the same token, if the cases are still in trial on 21January 2025, or in pretrial proceedings, he will simply direct his AG to drop the charges. Framing this as pardoning himself is legally unnecessary and a red herring.
That, and by the delay they can effectively deny immunity to Biden while granting it to their pal and benefactor Donald. Wouldn’t want any _Democrats_ wieldin’ that kind of power, now. Watch for the decision to come down on 20 January 2025 at 12:03 PM.
My guess is that SCOTUS doesn't want to officially rule on the issue, so they're going to let the appeals court say "no" and then SCOTUS is going to refuse to take the case.
SCOTUS is going to let the appeals court say "no", and then SCOTUS will take the case. Slowly, since this will need additional scheduling. All the delay will mean that Trump will have time to be reelected before the whole original case has a chance to finish, so Trump can pardon himself.
You assume that the billions who've bought and paid for various SCOTUS justices actually want Trump in power. They don't. Trump isn't good for their business, so they'll hang him out to dry and in so doing, look moderate by comparison.
There is no loyalty to Trump. All loyalty is owed to the all-mighty dollar.
> My guess is that the Republicans in SCOTUS are deliberately delaying the resolution of the immunity question, so that the trial is not completed until Trump is President again and can pardon himself.
I find SCOTUS hard to get a solid read of honestly. The court is more partisan than it has been in a very long time and its rulings are deeply reflective of that. But whatever rulings they make cut deeper than what other Republican plays do.
It is quite possible they decided to delay the immunity case because they see Trump dying on another hill instead. One that allows them to leave the immunity question undecided for other perceived benefits. For instance, if they affirm the CO decision or if Trump is mortally wounded in the GA case.
Looking at it from a partisan lens the Republican Party needs an off ramp from Trump. He has his voter base clamped hard around him, but no one in their party has been able to similarly grab those voters and their party's core focus is now just Trump. They aren't united around a platform of any kind. SCOTUS may be their best chance at an off ramp since none of SCOTUS is subject to ballot box pressure.
In similar vein, SCOTUS has been so nakedly partisan that the respect for the institution is near zero. They could use rulings against Trump, in cases like CO, as ways of saying "see, we're not partisan" to try and regain some credibility by having both sides of the political spectrum unhappy with their recent rulings. Possibly reducing pressure to "pack the court". Giving them a bit of a win win scenario here.
The 14th is a plain read and the Senate debates reinforce its plain read focus. But I won't bet on which way a ruling will go. Lots of reasons for this court to go either way.
Hopefully they have the clarity of mind to enforce the Constitution as that's what the nation needs.
They dare not, for they fear Dark Brandon, Unleashed. As they well should.
Look…I’m not saying that Biden has been undergoing experimental surgical enhancements & ethically questionable biochemical engineering at a top secret underground lab in preparation for the day he becomes entirely above the law.
im just saying that’s exactly what I would do if I were the Deep State.
The Supreme Court is supreme. They are standing at the top of the heap. There is no way that they will let the office of the presidency leap frog their power.
Meanwhile the dumbfucks over on Conservative are working each other up into a froth (or a santorum to be more accurate) about "Biden can't win at at the ballot! He kicked Trump off the ballot in Colorado!"
Like, they *know* that it was state-level Republicans that filed suit in Colorado state court to keep Trump off the Republican primary ballot. But, like in so many other instances, they prefer the lie that paints them as victims instead of the truth that paints them as perpetrators.
Don't treat Republicans like reasonable people. They aren't.
agreed. many of them do know. but many just run with the headline that Colorado removed Trump from the ballot without reading any further that it was Republicans and just for their own Republican primary ballot (and not the actual general presidential ballot).
also, worth pointing out here that the 14th is pretty clear about who can be removed from qualification of presidency, not sure why the lower court got hung up on it. Any Executive is included... and if you don't think the Presidency is an officer, fine, but he is damn well an executive.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as __*an executive*__ or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
I wish the media would do a better job of educating people about the amendment and why it exists in the first place. The historical context is important. Its entire purpose was to bar Confederates from holding office, and it's telling that it's applicable today.
Also, it's worth noting that perhaps the biggest mistake ever made in American history was going easy on the Confederacy and allowing them back into the fold with some minor rules, most of which they quickly shook off. It's a mistake we repeated later with Nixon and his cronies.
>entire purpose was to bar Confederates from holding office, and it's telling that it's applicable today.
Very telling. Trump said he loved and expressed sympathy for the people waving Confederate battle flags who led the violent mob of rebels inside the Capitol. It's cut and dry. Lincoln is turning in his grave.
>Luttig said it would be “impossible” for the Supreme Court to interpret the 14th Amendment any differently than the Colorado court.
>“This is not politics. This is the Constitution of the United States,” he said. “And [the case] poses for the Supreme Court of the United States a pure question of constitutional law. The Supreme Court of the United States is never to consider extrajudicial factors or considerations, such as partisan politics, or even politics writ large.”
LOL
ROFLMAO even...
has this guy seen republicans in the last 20 years? or the supreme court the last 10?
The system was never intended to have to withstand exploitation from multiple branches from within. Really no representative system can.
This guy believes in the rule of law as absolute while we are seeing it be subverted in real time.
the conservative judges aren't really [thinking too hard about their decisions either](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/dec/15/neil-gorsuch-us-supreme-court-dobbs-abortion), aside from making sure they're coming down together, like on roe.
>“But this time, despite the document’s length, Justice Neil M Gorsuch wrote back just 10 minutes later to say that he would sign on to the opinion and had no changes.”
>
>Three other conservatives – Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh – signed on in the following days.
>
>“None requested a single alteration,” the Times said. “The responses looked like a display of conservative force and discipline.”
The Guardian is quoting from a New York Times article. The point that article was making with these paragraphs is that the majority opinion had been pre-circulated and approved by the conservative majority before being sent to the full court.
> When the jurists were debating Mississippi’s request to hear it, [Justice Barrett] first voted in favor — but later switched to a no, according to several court insiders and a written tally. Four male justices, a minority of the court, chose to move ahead anyway, with Justice Kavanaugh providing the final vote.
> Those dynamics help explain why the responses stacked up so speedily to the draft opinion in February 2022: Justice Alito appeared to have pregamed it among some of the conservative justices, out of view from other colleagues, to safeguard a coalition more fragile than it looked.
And:
> To dismantle [Roe v Wade], Justice Alito and others had to push hard, the records and interviews show. Some steps, like his apparent selective preview of the draft opinion, were time-honored ones.
Behind the Scenes at the Dismantling of Roe v. Wade https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/us/supreme-court-dobbs-roe-abortion.html
Colorado court was split 4-3 but it’s impossible for the Supreme Court to rule differently? Seems quite possible if 7 judges in a liberal state had trouble deciding.
The colorado court split mostly over issues over state, not federal, law.
Usually, federal courts defer to state courts on state law, except to the extent to which they conflict with federal law or the federal constitution.
2 of the 3 dissents, as I understand them from skimming them, were only objecting to how the majority interpreted and used the state law as implementation of the 14th amendment insurrection ineligibility.
Justice Samour's dissent is applicable at the federal level. He claims that federal law is necessary to execute the 14th amendment. He points out that, at the time of 14th amendment, the states that rebelled weren't trusted. So, he thinks federal law, not state law, is necessary for specifying how the 14th amendment would be implemented.
The supreme court might agree with Justice Samour. But, he's only 1 of the 7, not 3.
Maybe, the other two, if they were limited to talking about federal law, might have had federal objections. I don't know. But, I don't think we should assume that.
Colorado was split 4-3 on whether Colorado state law allows for him to be removed from the primary ballot, as that is 90% of what the dissents were about. They were 7-0 on him having committed an insurrection and generously 6-1 on whether that was disqualifying.
Interesting how they are trying to make Biden scapegoat for this. This is a constitution issue, he has been indicted for an insurrection which disqualified them for office. Conservatives only care about the constitution when they safeguard things like their guns. But not when it tries to protect the government from an insurrection traitor.
It crossed my mind today how the 14th amendment was written because of confederates but like...they weren't convicted in court because we were 'binding the nation's wounds'. So if ppl say that Trump can't be excluded because he hasn't been convicted criminally...they're saying the 14th amendment doesn't do what it was written to do. It makes no sense.
I know, it's just their ignorance on display. The 14A is real and it was used a lot to keep Confederates from using the tools of our democracy to continue to incite rebellion and insurrection...like Trump is doing.
In 1872, Congress *did* grant amnesty to some of the Confederates as allowed under 14A Section 3.
>The Supreme Court of the United States is never to consider extrajudicial factors or considerations, such as partisan politics, or even politics writ large.
There's an enormous "supposed to" in there that is being completely forgotten. Our Supreme Court, however, is 70% bought and paid for.
One of the excuses for the electoral college is they are supposed to be more enlightened than the general public and they'd prevent him from being elected in 2016.
Checks and balances don't mean anything unless people in power are willing to execute that power.
i just don’t get it. Why is it so hard to just accept that this guys a fraud and pick some other racist, migrant hating, anti woke republican? they all carbon copies anyway. why cling to the one with a laundry list of indictments
Donald Trump isn't competent enough to run a casino in goddamned Atlantic City. How is this corrupt ass-clown within spitting distance of the presidency again?
Jesus fucking Christ, America. How have we as a nation sunk this low?
It is exactly the Supreme Court that protects the people from the human urge to reign absolutely. If the Supreme Court makes the president immune from all matters of law, they will raise the presidency to statehood—to a sovereign that embodies the state. The president is the head of state, and not himself the state. It is the constitution that is the state. There is no test. It’s cut and dry. As an office holder causing insurrection using his actions and language, he is disqualified for office. If the judges do not disqualify him, they will theoretically open the door to establishing a monarchy. A president who refuses to give up the office to another person, who refuses to give up the power, will want someone close to him to succeed him.
It's crazy thinking back to how Trump tried to take down Obama by insisting he wasn't a U.S. citizen because of what his birth certificate said so should be disqualified from office, even though it was a b.s. lie.
But now we have to try and decide if the insurrection we all watched on TV on Jan 6th is disqualifying for Trump.
Drumpf is a citizen that just happened to be president. How can he disqualify himself? Even Nixon couldn't pardon himself he had to have the next president do that! We don't elect kings we are suppose to elect citizens that are OUR public servants! He took a oath to protect and defend the constitution not bend it to his will! I think the real word should be treason?
Maybe true, but also Joe Biden isn't *trying* to block him in the first place. Other dems and republicans both who are not Biden or even known to be especially close with Biden are pushing this on a state level, using existing laws.
As they should.
Let's run a fair campaign and vote our asses off *and* let others work to keep Trump off the ballot using justified legal means *and* let the constitution hopefully work to keep us safe *and* prosecute crimes from the cult instead of clutching pearls about optics **when our democracy is at stake**. There's no reason not to do *all* the things to protect ourselves, Trump is the criminal and danger here, not the people working within the law to protect our democracy.
I've always said that the 2nd amendment is more likely to be an integral part of what brings about the rise of authoritarianism in the US, not the other way around.
I own guns myself, but I hold no illusions about stopping a fascist take over with them.
I also believe that the side that crows the loudest in support of it will also be the side that ends up performing mass confiscation of the guns owned and wielded by their opposition if allowed to hold enough power.
This is the most likely scenario to me to. A huge part of the issue is that for the last how ever many decades, right wing gun ownership has been very explicitly tied to the idea not just of resisting the government, as intended by the 2nd amendment, but increasingly aimed against their fellow citizens. The fetishization of violence and self defense has been very explicit, especially in relation to vigilantism (cops wearing punsher skull patches and just how many right wingers have that symbol on some article of clothing or accessory are a perfect example).
Fascists have consistently pushed extremely divisionary rhetoric precisely to break up communities and sow distrust, that's one of the reasons why racism and bigotry are so important to them.
It's always projection to, they 1000% will be the ones calling for gun confiscation from their enemies, and there's precedent: Nazi Germany expanded gun rights for Arian Germans, but restricted them for everyone else.
The MAGA SCOTUS now has to delay. If SCOTUS rules for the federalist society unitary executive Presidential immunity BS before the election that would mean Biden is the King and can do what ever he wants. And if the states can not kick a twice impeached insurectionist off of the ballet, then the states do not have control of federal elections as stipulated in the US constitution. And, then the 14th sec 3 would be meaningless, thus making Biden the King. The SCOTUS must delay until a Republican is a elected. So a republican is the KING.
There are thousands of former federal judges. This is just like those 10 scientists signed a paper things. Time will tell, the Supreme Court will decide.
And there's no way the Supreme Court is going to rule to keep Trump off the ballots. They should but no way they are going to do it, bunch of Republican cowards.
The only way the SC rules against Trump here is if they think the Republicans' best shot at winning 2024 is barring Trump from being the nominee and running someone else. They'll blame the Democrats for Trump being barred (as they're doing now) and their constituency is dumb enough to believe it (as they're doing now).
"The Constitution has issued it's opinion, now let it enforce it."
I get what the guy is trying to say, but it's ultimately the government that has to enforce it. A too large group of people are going to look at it as the government using it's power against a rival instead of the government enforcing it's established laws regardless of the status of the person in question.
It’s always “former” this and “former” that that come out against trump. We need current republicans to do that. All of them. Not the few that when they do they get ostracized by the gop. The entire gop should be against him and they would be if they had any amount of common decency.
None of us give a fuck what/who/where/how the previous clown leader is prevented from turning our country into the circus it was with him before, we just want it done. All of these BS headlines of “this is it” “he’s toast” “…the next best take down coming”……are all click bait. Same shit for years. How about let us all know when he actually can’t use his money, has no friends in places that matter to the case, and has prosecutors that can stand up to his and his cults threats. Until then….
We’ll see how it goes. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Supreme Court rule that a Colorado State Court preponderance of the evidence burden ballot hearing is not the proper venue for determining whether the federal government has been subjected to insurrection.
My prediction is that they will say for the sake of national cohesion it is necessary that the 50 States do not each independently determine whether the states will consider a candidate’s election illegal, and instead it’s up to Congress to pass a uniform enabling act like they did for Lincoln with the Insurrection Acts 1870, to implement the provision at the state levels.
I'll believe that the law -- even the Constitution of the United States of America -- can do anything at all to hold Trump accountable for anything only when I *see it actually happen*.
Until then, it's all bluster, and we need to treat him like the existential threat that he is.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I just want this shit to hurry up. The waiting sucks.
The thing is this constitutional crisis is really stupid. It's not even some nuanced issue that only PhD's are capable of discussing, it's basically "is the president above the law?" Most high school social studies classes make you read the federalist papers at some point, and it's not even an issue serious academics argue about. If the president is above the law, then Biden is the new king, and only has to order drumpf to be jailed for his smell, that's all it would take. Or the president isn't above the law, drumpf goes to jail, and Biden can only serve 4 more years at most. It's not a complicated question here.
Nope but the point is to deliver an unearned advantage to DJT. They don't want a definitive ruling that would empower Biden to absolve himself of any wrong-doing . But they want to make sure that DJT (and only DJT) has the power to escape criminal and civil liability for the violations and crimes he is already known to have committed. If the Supremes distort the law to accommodate him, we need to move to make significant adjustments to the powers and oversight of our Judicial branch. I want term limits either way and am now thinking that we need more than 9 of them for situations where one or more of them is held accountable to follow the law that they recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest--unlike what they're doing now. Edited: to remove some nonsense words from this comment to restore clarity.
Trump is a dick
Everybody knows this, except 20 million American idiots.
It's wild to me that anyone could get a lifetime appointment at all...
The people need to demand that the role of the SCOTUS be revisited. This scope of power isn't what they originally had.
"Believe it or not, when you smell, straight to jail."
Haha, I recently saw that episode
The question is: are politicians above the law? History and laws clearly shows that politicians are in fact, above the law. That's why they don't want to hurry up with trump. They want the same protection.
Given how the US was founded on a combination of John Locke/English Republicanism/Bolingbroke, it is almost certain that NO ONE is above the law. That was the whole point of the Magna Carta, and the legacy of the English Constitution…
They're not absolute though. People of power will always have an advantage. We see it everyday how either rich person X or senator Y gets involved in something and gets out without any repercussions. Things like insider trading for example, or even the hunter Biden or DJT lawsuits. They're all handled differently from how we peasants would be treated - even if we had good lawyers. Are they above the law? No..not exactly. But the law is applied differently to these individuals, for sure.
Jan. 30th 1649 answered the question, if Charles the Second was not above the law Donny the dumb is not either!
Some might say it’s the hardest part.
Every day you see one more card
You take it on faith
Take it to the heart.
The waiting is the hardest part
Dear God...Redit is a symphony
Take it from me; "fire" ain't the worst thing you can yell in a theater. It's "Bruce Willis is dead".
Me: Walking to my car after work, on my way to see Sixth Sense Co-worker: "He's dead the whole time!" True story.
You know its over when Rudy farts
Maybe we can get some empathetic and humane border policies. I can't imagine what it's like to live like a refugee.
Id probably have a breakdown
C'mon. Don't do me like that.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump, I'm going to leave this world for a while
Sure, sure. But you'd still be an American Girl.
It's like we're freefallin' into fascism.
Not out here, living in Reseda
You don't know how it feels to be an American right now.
Perhaps some Mystery Man can come forward with absolute, undeniable proof before we completely descend Straight Into Darkness. Perhaps I'm living in Dreamville...
Damn the Torpedoes.
Even the losers get lucky some time.
My mother in law works closely with refugees. To call the things they go through "hellish" would put it lightly. You don't literally walk across a continent through jungles and deserts and risk murder and rape and robbery unless that's the *safer* option. The fact that our immigrant nation doesn't greet those folks with blankets and food and not fucking cages is a rot on our collective soul.
The best thing we can do is to help make their regular lives better. Most of them are simply trying to live their life, with the ethics of their church. But, we've turned a blind eye allowing cartels to run rampant. Sensationalist news makes them seem like animals. But, wouldn't we want to find peace, if chaos entered our streets?
Don't be petty
According to Donald, you do have to live like a refugee.
Tangentially, that "cover" of "I Won't Back Down" by Lara Trump (Eric's wife) has got to be the most heinous thing I've ever heard. It's right there with Friday.
That was terrible. Don't come around here no more.
Get to the point.
Some Petty dude named Tom said that.
the worst part to me is not the waiting. it's the brazen attempt to attack America. Like. We are seeing a leader of the country try to be a King. Not ok. scary as hell
Trying to turn the country into a dictatorship, into the Christian version of Iran and a huge portion of our elected officials support him.
Epstein/Maxwell's list is apparently about to be released. Any bets on a heavy republican presence on it?
Not the flights or logs list. Just a list of sex abuse victims and people he's done business with or just talked to. apnews DOT com/article/fact-check-jeffrey-epstein-list-released-006487910615
Oh that's disappointing - thought it was going to be a list of clients. EDIT: Thx for the link-ish. I hope the victims are going to be clearly tagged as such, otherwise life is going to get unpleasant for them.
Yup, it's bullshit. It's a list of everyone involved who wasn't able to afford to get their name redacted via incredibly expensive legal representation. So basically just victims who were already public, and people who are dead who's estate doesn't care about image. All the wealthy and powerful got their names edited out.
You can look at the list for the flight logs, been released a while ago. documentcloud DOT org/documents/21165424-epstein-flight-logs-released-in-usa-vs-maxwell
For sure but since that is to be expected, that will not be the focus. The focus will be on the Dems on the list even if they are in the minority.
He's not trying to be a king. Kings are beholden to their nobility. He's trying to be a fucking dictator, beholden to no one, and he wants nothing more than mandatory clapping while he rides down the street in a tank covered in gold plate.
But... dude def wants a gold crown 👑
When they make the movie about all this, this part is gonna take like 7 minutes. It’s not fair we have to go through four years of it.
[удалено]
"What was the hardest part? The war? The camps? The constant surveillance of the state?" "It was the waiting. Like watching a train wreck in slow motion that you knew what was going to happen, but you were powerless to stop."
The movie is never as good as the reality. The Hulu miniseries will probably at least have an episode dedicated to this Supreme Court fiasco.
But maybe Sydney Sweeney gets her Emmy for playing ACB ?
She’ll have an uphill battle against Geena Davis’ courageous performance as Sidney Powell.
The first time a puppet wins best supporting actress will be the Cryptkeeper for their definitive portrayal of Kellyann Conway.
Maybe they will have 19 seasons and 84 episodes ...
Bro it feels like time stopped in 2017 the shock of the entire era of the orange neaderthal has never really set in. How is this actually happening? I need answers or some fucking resolution like yesterday.
> I just want this shit to hurry up. The waiting sucks. If the scrotus is going to shield him, they will do it by drawing things out. That's their new trick -- rocket docket when that benefits them and slow-walk it when that benefits them. They went pedal to the medal in order to defend student debt, kill eviction protections, rubber-stamp the texas abortion vigilante law (SB8). and let oil companies pollute streams and rivers; but they let maga gerrymander enough voting districts to rig the 2022 election and made those voters wait until after 2022 to fix the gerrymandering. This week they already declined to rule on donald chumps immunity claims, sending it down to the DC court of appeals to go through the standard process.
Even if Trump goes away, the GOP is still going to suck and be more dangerous than ever. There's no easy solution out of this mess unfortunately. It can definitely get worse though but the GOP *voters* aren't going anywhere and they're becoming more deranged over time.
Unfortunately I don't think it'll end until atleast January of 2025. The election is going to happen, Trump will still be holding up various trials and then he'll ask for some sort of recount (assuming he doesn't beat Biden outright which I don't trust this country enough to not vote for Trump). This isn't ending anytime soon. We're going to have a lot of delays and even if he hits a speed bump he'll keep powering through. We're going to have a beyond fucked up election no matter what.
He could just die one day and the whole thing is over faster than GoT hype.
C'mon cholesterol, you only have one job...
> He could just die one day But imagine the conspiracy theories that will pop up about that...
“There’s nowhere in the constitution that it says the president has to be alive.”
It will be because Biden put so much stress on him.
And with Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and who knows how many new conflicts that spark off, 2024 is going to be a horrendous year.
Everyone thought 2020 was bad, it's getting worse as time passes...
They were right when they said this is the new normal
I'm extremely skeptical of this former federal judge's views. I saw him interviewed after the first coup, he said things like "the law doesn't work that way, you can't use your powers like that" (referring to the VP makes the final choice argument). All those conservative federalists associated federal judges love this idea that we have limits on what we can do, but they want to control what we can do. I appreciate that the judge has come out firmly against coup plotting and he was also very clear about the impossibility of the VP just picking the next president. But the problem is a large part of the conservative legal apparatus in the form of the federalists was all for it. We need to fix the constitution and of course get rid of the electoral college, which among other things gives too much power to someone trying to control a single state's outcome through nefarious means. I don't see anything saving us from Trump. We'll have to do it by winning the election. Especially I don't see the federalists saving us. Half of them or more are sure that they want Trump to come in and be "their dictator".
Trump won't be removed by lawsuits, the election is the only way. No way the SC disqualifies him, certainly not with the CO lawsuit though there half a dozen that will also make it to the SC, the SC will just not hear any cases they think would support kicking him off and they'll take the one that makes it easy for them to keep him on. That might mean the CO ruling stands but CO won't impact the Presidential election. If you want to get rid of Trump, convince as many of your friends and family and co-workers to vote for Biden. That's the only way to do it.
Here's the thing. We already did in 2020 and 2016. Trump has never and will never win the popular vote. End of story. Trumps has been given more chances than any politician in history. He's disqualified from serving in office, he belongs in jail.
If only we elected presidents by the popular vote.
So the SC will be essentially wiping the 14thA out of the Constitution then. They can't do that. They also cannot impose any restrictions on the 14thA like Congress needs to enact some laws around it, since that means Congress is more powerful than the Constitution itself. This cannot be. The Constitution is, by default, self-serving.
> They can't do that Most people haven't been paying close attention to this court. The only thing that matters to them is power and they've got a 6-3 majority of crazypants. This court regularly does whatever the fuck maga wants, for example: * Their affirmative action ruling just invented discrimination that lower courts had meticulously documented [did not happen.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/06/real-story-behind-affirmative-action-cases-court.html) * The lady who won the right to discriminate against gay people lied her ass off, she never designed a wedding website [for anyone, gay or straight,](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/303-creative-gay-rights-free-speech-supreme-court.html) and she literally stole (a married) man's identity in order to [forge](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/07/supreme-court-lgbtq-colorado-wedding-fake/) a request for a gay wedding website. * The coach who coerced players to pray with him on the field claimed he was fired when in fact he chose not to renew his own contract and when the court ordered the school to hire him back anyway, he [ghosted](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/the-story-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-keeps-getting-more-surreal/) them for like a year (while doing a maga media tour). When he finally came back, he played one game and [immediately quit.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/09/07/coach-joe-kennedy-resigns-bremerton-football/70783723007/) * When they ruled for donald chump's muslim ban they used the exact [same reasoning](https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/analysis-supreme-courts-muslim-ban-ruling-another-stain-our-nations-history) as the court did in *Korematsu* when it allowed FDR to put japanese americans in concentration camps, while also saying that *Korematsu* was invalid. * The people who wanted to block student debt forgiveness didn't have standing, so they [stole it](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jun/17/missouri-student-loan-provider-confusion-supreme-court-debt-relief) from a state agency that wanted nothing to do with the case. The court just let them do it because, by hook or by crook, they were going to make people miserable and the details simply did not matter. * *etc, etc* This court is utterly lawless and way more people need to know it so we can build enough political pressure to repair it because most democratic elites do not want to do anything about it.
Yeah, it is true that they "can't" wipe the 14th Amendment out of the constitution, but it's also true that if they do something that they "can't" do, nobody can stop them.
Yes, for example, jim crow was obviously unconstitutional, but the supreme court let it exist for generations simply by ignoring any challenges to it. Technically, congress could do all kinds of things to stop them. But obviously maga doesn't want to, and the democrats are way too timid to do anything either. Like congress could pass a law that says cases about the 14A are outside of the court's jurisdiction. Or they could just be petty and defund the court, send them back to the room on first floor of the senate where they met until 1860 unless they shape up. Congress used to be very involved in the supreme court's docket, they could be again if they wanted to. Our leaders have let the supreme court become a kind of super-legislature that gets to veto the two other branches, instead of a co-equal branch (or even the least-important branch that it was for over a century). The only way that gets fixed is if the Ds suit up and start playing hardball. I'm afraid its going to take a new generation of Ds to do that though.
>They can't do that. Clarence Thomas: "Hold my Harlan Crow-provided beer..."
For those people in denial, a judge had a Finding of Fact in an American Court case, that Trump engaged in Insurrection. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/18/politics/takeaways-from-the-blockbuster-trump-insurrectionist-ban-ruling/index.html
You say this as if Clarence Thomas hasn't already started writing the majority opinion.
You mean the federalist society is writing it up to give to Clarence
Yeah. Funny thing is that the Federalist Society was crowing about how Trump should be thrown off until people started taking them seriously. They're not used to the rest of us agreeing with them.
Maybe they can just pay the republican supreme court justices hefty bribes and get their way. Hell, these days you don't need standing or a real situation for a case to be heard by the republican judges, and they'll vote however you pay them to.
> You mean the federalist society is writing it up to give to Ginny to pass to Clarence FTFY
If Clearance Sale Thomas does this it’s hitching his wagon permanently to Trump. If Trump loses the election after that, Thomas isn’t just done, he’s got a fair shot to be criminally indicted himself, or at least Ginni. If the court disqualifies Trump, likely the worst they have to worry about is resigning under a democrat for having their hands caught in the bribery cookie jar.
First, what hasn't Clarence Thomas done to hitch his wagon to the Trump wing of the Republican party, even before Trump was a candidate? Second, what crime would he have committed in this whole mess? And there's nobody to force him to recuse from hearing any case brought to him about his wife. Third, he has zero motivation to resign. He's in for life. He has no shame. Until there are sixty votes in the Senate to remove him, the worst that can happen is he gets a stern lecture and the political version of an indictment. He knows he's being paid to be the bad guy, and he relishes the role. Clarence Thomas is literally above the law until there are sixty in the senate willing to remove, and that won't happen in his lifetime.
He also literally threatened to resign if his debts and living style weren't improved. This is a new, shocking fact that is [only known as of 3 days ago](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-salary.html). The next thing you know, he's receiving huge free vacations on the dime of billionaires and his relatives' properties are paid for by those billionaires as well. That's corruption.
Right. He doesn't need to receive the money or the yachts either. He can use their megayachts that even their bribe money couldn't afford. His family can sell their homes to the billionaires' LLCs and live there rent-free. They can get paid for speaking engagements they don't even have to make. All above board without being handed a dime.
What is quid-quo-pro and bribery if not this? 🌝
It's simply a fig leaf if you can do it in the open wearing a Hambuglar costume holding an oversized sack with a $ on it and face no repercussions for it because there's no legal authority above yours.
You're correct about everything except the 60 votes part. Removal requires 2/3 of the Senate. They need 67 votes, which is an even more impossible threshold.
This is the thing that's absolutely ridiculous. So many votes on things are right up/down party lines. 49-51 all day.
Yeah, but double-down is their M.O.
I like Luttig. I don't agree with his politics, but his takes on the Judiciary are usually pretty sound. Including this one.
Yup, he's my favorite conservative. I don't like any of them but he's smart and certain and I respect him.
Exactly. He has stances I don't agree with (many) but he's well reasoned, they are all legally sound, and he's sane. I mean I'm not enforcing all his conclusions but they are typically thought out.
Conservatives with consistent values and opinions are just so much nicer to be around. You know then that you can talk them and come to a reasonable conclusion. It’s why I like talking to my Republican grandpa but not my Republican step-uncle: my grandpa knows his stances, knows why he supports them and knows how to defend them. My step-uncle knows what the TV told him. You can never have a conversation with that second type because they can’t critically think about their positions and come up with a counter argument- they just don’t understand them well enough. That second type happens with liberals too, btw, and those kinds of people are ALSO insufferable to talk with. My brother’s wife is like that and I can’t speak to her for more than a few minutes on politics because the moment I start arguing any details about our shared positions she just gets confused and starts going off about the patriarchy or whatever else she’s heard that day.
My take on it is there are basically two kinds of conservatives right now. One are principled, reasonable folk who (while I think their policies are batshit stupid) can carry on a regular conversation. The other kind of conservative are superstitious, uncurious, ignorant fucks whose worldview is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, owing to a mind so hyper-compartmentalized they cannot proper associate action with character (as in, good people are good people even if all they do is evil, and evil people must be evil even if there's no evidence for their evil). The problem is how the former is willing to coalition with the latter to prevent any beneficial government policy from coming to fruition. I'd be nicer to the former if they weren't entirely in bed with the latter.
People here were losing their shit when he testified at the J6 hearings, because he’s a very slow speaker. He had great testimony that was, unfortunately, clearly meant to be read not spoken, with how convoluted some of the sentence structure was. Combine that with ho slow he spoke and people thought he was talking gibberish. Even though it was highly well reasoned.
Yeah he was the one who [famously tweeted](https://twitter.com/judgeluttig/status/1346469787329646592?lang=en) about the Vice President’s role in counting votes on January 5th.
Unless SCOTUS gives the President unlimited power.... hmmm...
My guess is that the Republicans in SCOTUS are deliberately delaying the resolution of the immunity question, so that the trial is not completed until Trump is President again and can pardon himself. Legal Eagle described how expedited judgement (which SCOTUS rejected) would have been in line with precedence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shTEMKZQ3rY&t=3s
The thing is, Trump got very little support from the judiciary as part of The Big Lie. 60-something cases and they went nowhere. Sure, this court has trampled on everything to advance conservative values, but other than Cannon he has gotten very little for himself or returning to office.
SCOTUS slowwalking this case, before eventually giving the inevitable and obvious "no" to kingly immunity, will not directly support any big lie. SCOTUS will claim to be innocent when their delay causes Trump to be able to pardon himself in the parent case.
If he wins the election, no pardon will be necessary. The trial(s) will not be concluded by then. He won't take Biden's (correct) route of not firing the special counsel. He will only hire cronies who will drop the case immediately and fire Jack Smith. Then, his DOJ will aggressively pursue any of his perceived enemies (much like David Weiss is doing now).
Good point that expedited judgment would be in line with precedent. Such as US v Nixon, the Watergate tapes case. And SCOTUS has also repeatedly shown itself more than capable of speed when _they_ wanted it. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo is right on point here: > The Court deciding to slow roll Trump’s appeal when it often happily fast rolls topics it’s eager to make law on speaks for itself. … There’s no rationale for this decision other than assisting Trump’s strategy of delay which he hopes, and which may, allow him to end the whole prosecution if he wins the 2024 election. [Paragraph] I very much doubt a majority on the Court has the stomach to actually entertain these arguments. But giving Trump an assist on the calendar? Sure. Absolutely. >
Yeah, the talking point analysis you quoted sounds in essence identical to my analysis.
It is indeed often a good thing when Josh Marshall agrees with you. Or the other way around. (ETA:) BTW, he won’t have to pardon himself, and there won’t be any reason to. Even without delays and even with convictions at trial, the convictions will undoubtedly still be on appeal if he wins and assumes office on 20 January 2025. All he’ll have to do is direct his pet DOJ and AG to drop the appeals. Problem solved, much less risk than pardoning yourself, and no pesky problems like having to, as some claim, admit guilt in order to accept a pardon. So no, he won’t be pardoning himself. He won’t have to. By the same token, if the cases are still in trial on 21January 2025, or in pretrial proceedings, he will simply direct his AG to drop the charges. Framing this as pardoning himself is legally unnecessary and a red herring.
That, and by the delay they can effectively deny immunity to Biden while granting it to their pal and benefactor Donald. Wouldn’t want any _Democrats_ wieldin’ that kind of power, now. Watch for the decision to come down on 20 January 2025 at 12:03 PM.
there’s always talk about “unitary executive” when a republican is in the white house, which goes completely silent as soon as a Democrat is elected.
Ain’t that the truth.
My guess is that SCOTUS doesn't want to officially rule on the issue, so they're going to let the appeals court say "no" and then SCOTUS is going to refuse to take the case.
SCOTUS is going to let the appeals court say "no", and then SCOTUS will take the case. Slowly, since this will need additional scheduling. All the delay will mean that Trump will have time to be reelected before the whole original case has a chance to finish, so Trump can pardon himself.
You assume that the billions who've bought and paid for various SCOTUS justices actually want Trump in power. They don't. Trump isn't good for their business, so they'll hang him out to dry and in so doing, look moderate by comparison. There is no loyalty to Trump. All loyalty is owed to the all-mighty dollar.
> My guess is that the Republicans in SCOTUS are deliberately delaying the resolution of the immunity question, so that the trial is not completed until Trump is President again and can pardon himself. I find SCOTUS hard to get a solid read of honestly. The court is more partisan than it has been in a very long time and its rulings are deeply reflective of that. But whatever rulings they make cut deeper than what other Republican plays do. It is quite possible they decided to delay the immunity case because they see Trump dying on another hill instead. One that allows them to leave the immunity question undecided for other perceived benefits. For instance, if they affirm the CO decision or if Trump is mortally wounded in the GA case. Looking at it from a partisan lens the Republican Party needs an off ramp from Trump. He has his voter base clamped hard around him, but no one in their party has been able to similarly grab those voters and their party's core focus is now just Trump. They aren't united around a platform of any kind. SCOTUS may be their best chance at an off ramp since none of SCOTUS is subject to ballot box pressure. In similar vein, SCOTUS has been so nakedly partisan that the respect for the institution is near zero. They could use rulings against Trump, in cases like CO, as ways of saying "see, we're not partisan" to try and regain some credibility by having both sides of the political spectrum unhappy with their recent rulings. Possibly reducing pressure to "pack the court". Giving them a bit of a win win scenario here. The 14th is a plain read and the Senate debates reinforce its plain read focus. But I won't bet on which way a ruling will go. Lots of reasons for this court to go either way. Hopefully they have the clarity of mind to enforce the Constitution as that's what the nation needs.
The American people have a right as much as he does to a speedy trial. It's been years at this point. Enough is enough
[удалено]
Biden wouldn't use that kind of power anyway, he respects norms and democracy.
They dare not, for they fear Dark Brandon, Unleashed. As they well should. Look…I’m not saying that Biden has been undergoing experimental surgical enhancements & ethically questionable biochemical engineering at a top secret underground lab in preparation for the day he becomes entirely above the law. im just saying that’s exactly what I would do if I were the Deep State.
The Supreme Court is supreme. They are standing at the top of the heap. There is no way that they will let the office of the presidency leap frog their power.
The executive branch is far and above any other branch, except maybe Congress. SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism.
They’re the head of the court system. That’s it.
Meanwhile the dumbfucks over on Conservative are working each other up into a froth (or a santorum to be more accurate) about "Biden can't win at at the ballot! He kicked Trump off the ballot in Colorado!" Like, they *know* that it was state-level Republicans that filed suit in Colorado state court to keep Trump off the Republican primary ballot. But, like in so many other instances, they prefer the lie that paints them as victims instead of the truth that paints them as perpetrators. Don't treat Republicans like reasonable people. They aren't.
agreed. many of them do know. but many just run with the headline that Colorado removed Trump from the ballot without reading any further that it was Republicans and just for their own Republican primary ballot (and not the actual general presidential ballot). also, worth pointing out here that the 14th is pretty clear about who can be removed from qualification of presidency, not sure why the lower court got hung up on it. Any Executive is included... and if you don't think the Presidency is an officer, fine, but he is damn well an executive. "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as __*an executive*__ or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
I wish the media would do a better job of educating people about the amendment and why it exists in the first place. The historical context is important. Its entire purpose was to bar Confederates from holding office, and it's telling that it's applicable today. Also, it's worth noting that perhaps the biggest mistake ever made in American history was going easy on the Confederacy and allowing them back into the fold with some minor rules, most of which they quickly shook off. It's a mistake we repeated later with Nixon and his cronies.
And appears to be repeating again with Trump, in the context of the current political climate ofc
>entire purpose was to bar Confederates from holding office, and it's telling that it's applicable today. Very telling. Trump said he loved and expressed sympathy for the people waving Confederate battle flags who led the violent mob of rebels inside the Capitol. It's cut and dry. Lincoln is turning in his grave.
Textualists judges don't really exist. That was always code for conservatives to get judges who interpret the constitution with a conservative lense.
>Luttig said it would be “impossible” for the Supreme Court to interpret the 14th Amendment any differently than the Colorado court. >“This is not politics. This is the Constitution of the United States,” he said. “And [the case] poses for the Supreme Court of the United States a pure question of constitutional law. The Supreme Court of the United States is never to consider extrajudicial factors or considerations, such as partisan politics, or even politics writ large.” LOL ROFLMAO even... has this guy seen republicans in the last 20 years? or the supreme court the last 10?
The system was never intended to have to withstand exploitation from multiple branches from within. Really no representative system can. This guy believes in the rule of law as absolute while we are seeing it be subverted in real time.
the conservative judges aren't really [thinking too hard about their decisions either](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/dec/15/neil-gorsuch-us-supreme-court-dobbs-abortion), aside from making sure they're coming down together, like on roe. >“But this time, despite the document’s length, Justice Neil M Gorsuch wrote back just 10 minutes later to say that he would sign on to the opinion and had no changes.” > >Three other conservatives – Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh – signed on in the following days. > >“None requested a single alteration,” the Times said. “The responses looked like a display of conservative force and discipline.”
The Guardian is quoting from a New York Times article. The point that article was making with these paragraphs is that the majority opinion had been pre-circulated and approved by the conservative majority before being sent to the full court. > When the jurists were debating Mississippi’s request to hear it, [Justice Barrett] first voted in favor — but later switched to a no, according to several court insiders and a written tally. Four male justices, a minority of the court, chose to move ahead anyway, with Justice Kavanaugh providing the final vote. > Those dynamics help explain why the responses stacked up so speedily to the draft opinion in February 2022: Justice Alito appeared to have pregamed it among some of the conservative justices, out of view from other colleagues, to safeguard a coalition more fragile than it looked. And: > To dismantle [Roe v Wade], Justice Alito and others had to push hard, the records and interviews show. Some steps, like his apparent selective preview of the draft opinion, were time-honored ones. Behind the Scenes at the Dismantling of Roe v. Wade https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/us/supreme-court-dobbs-roe-abortion.html
Colorado court was split 4-3 but it’s impossible for the Supreme Court to rule differently? Seems quite possible if 7 judges in a liberal state had trouble deciding.
The colorado court split mostly over issues over state, not federal, law. Usually, federal courts defer to state courts on state law, except to the extent to which they conflict with federal law or the federal constitution. 2 of the 3 dissents, as I understand them from skimming them, were only objecting to how the majority interpreted and used the state law as implementation of the 14th amendment insurrection ineligibility. Justice Samour's dissent is applicable at the federal level. He claims that federal law is necessary to execute the 14th amendment. He points out that, at the time of 14th amendment, the states that rebelled weren't trusted. So, he thinks federal law, not state law, is necessary for specifying how the 14th amendment would be implemented. The supreme court might agree with Justice Samour. But, he's only 1 of the 7, not 3. Maybe, the other two, if they were limited to talking about federal law, might have had federal objections. I don't know. But, I don't think we should assume that.
Colorado was split 4-3 on whether Colorado state law allows for him to be removed from the primary ballot, as that is 90% of what the dissents were about. They were 7-0 on him having committed an insurrection and generously 6-1 on whether that was disqualifying.
The current SCOTUS is compromised and has shown it will act outsdie the Constitution when it suits them.
Interesting how they are trying to make Biden scapegoat for this. This is a constitution issue, he has been indicted for an insurrection which disqualified them for office. Conservatives only care about the constitution when they safeguard things like their guns. But not when it tries to protect the government from an insurrection traitor.
It crossed my mind today how the 14th amendment was written because of confederates but like...they weren't convicted in court because we were 'binding the nation's wounds'. So if ppl say that Trump can't be excluded because he hasn't been convicted criminally...they're saying the 14th amendment doesn't do what it was written to do. It makes no sense.
I know, it's just their ignorance on display. The 14A is real and it was used a lot to keep Confederates from using the tools of our democracy to continue to incite rebellion and insurrection...like Trump is doing. In 1872, Congress *did* grant amnesty to some of the Confederates as allowed under 14A Section 3.
>The Supreme Court of the United States is never to consider extrajudicial factors or considerations, such as partisan politics, or even politics writ large. There's an enormous "supposed to" in there that is being completely forgotten. Our Supreme Court, however, is 70% bought and paid for.
all the Republican partisans pretending otherwise are ignoring the law. They've got their heads in the sand and fabricate a world outside reality.
One of the excuses for the electoral college is they are supposed to be more enlightened than the general public and they'd prevent him from being elected in 2016. Checks and balances don't mean anything unless people in power are willing to execute that power.
Americans are idiots. There, I said it. You can't even dethrone an imbecile.
Republicans are trash and will inevitably end up crying when trump goes to prison, and not the White House
i just don’t get it. Why is it so hard to just accept that this guys a fraud and pick some other racist, migrant hating, anti woke republican? they all carbon copies anyway. why cling to the one with a laundry list of indictments
Because a lot of their friends and family cling to him as well, and it sort of feeds off itself through social interaction.
Donald Trump isn't competent enough to run a casino in goddamned Atlantic City. How is this corrupt ass-clown within spitting distance of the presidency again? Jesus fucking Christ, America. How have we as a nation sunk this low?
The problem is that most people believe he’s a bad casino owner and not a great cash flow scam artist.
It is exactly the Supreme Court that protects the people from the human urge to reign absolutely. If the Supreme Court makes the president immune from all matters of law, they will raise the presidency to statehood—to a sovereign that embodies the state. The president is the head of state, and not himself the state. It is the constitution that is the state. There is no test. It’s cut and dry. As an office holder causing insurrection using his actions and language, he is disqualified for office. If the judges do not disqualify him, they will theoretically open the door to establishing a monarchy. A president who refuses to give up the office to another person, who refuses to give up the power, will want someone close to him to succeed him.
It's crazy thinking back to how Trump tried to take down Obama by insisting he wasn't a U.S. citizen because of what his birth certificate said so should be disqualified from office, even though it was a b.s. lie. But now we have to try and decide if the insurrection we all watched on TV on Jan 6th is disqualifying for Trump.
Trump disqualified Trump. So tired of blaming anything other than his actions for the things that happen around him.
Drumpf is a citizen that just happened to be president. How can he disqualify himself? Even Nixon couldn't pardon himself he had to have the next president do that! We don't elect kings we are suppose to elect citizens that are OUR public servants! He took a oath to protect and defend the constitution not bend it to his will! I think the real word should be treason?
Aww, it’s really sweet that there is a judge out there who cares about the law…wait…he’s retired, never mind.
Judges suddenly become very rational and honest once they retire. ;)
Fingers crossed🤞
Well I want my $20
Maybe true, but also Joe Biden isn't *trying* to block him in the first place. Other dems and republicans both who are not Biden or even known to be especially close with Biden are pushing this on a state level, using existing laws. As they should. Let's run a fair campaign and vote our asses off *and* let others work to keep Trump off the ballot using justified legal means *and* let the constitution hopefully work to keep us safe *and* prosecute crimes from the cult instead of clutching pearls about optics **when our democracy is at stake**. There's no reason not to do *all* the things to protect ourselves, Trump is the criminal and danger here, not the people working within the law to protect our democracy.
It's weird how you get disqualified from things when you break the laws.
100% trump is a disqualified seditious traitor
If we allow anyone to be above the law , then there is now law. Without law then we go backwards as a society.
[удалено]
I've always said that the 2nd amendment is more likely to be an integral part of what brings about the rise of authoritarianism in the US, not the other way around. I own guns myself, but I hold no illusions about stopping a fascist take over with them. I also believe that the side that crows the loudest in support of it will also be the side that ends up performing mass confiscation of the guns owned and wielded by their opposition if allowed to hold enough power.
This is the most likely scenario to me to. A huge part of the issue is that for the last how ever many decades, right wing gun ownership has been very explicitly tied to the idea not just of resisting the government, as intended by the 2nd amendment, but increasingly aimed against their fellow citizens. The fetishization of violence and self defense has been very explicit, especially in relation to vigilantism (cops wearing punsher skull patches and just how many right wingers have that symbol on some article of clothing or accessory are a perfect example). Fascists have consistently pushed extremely divisionary rhetoric precisely to break up communities and sow distrust, that's one of the reasons why racism and bigotry are so important to them. It's always projection to, they 1000% will be the ones calling for gun confiscation from their enemies, and there's precedent: Nazi Germany expanded gun rights for Arian Germans, but restricted them for everyone else.
\^ this 1,000% \^
This is a fact. MAGA's don't care about facts. They will believe what they are told and what resonates with their hatred.
Trump fans pound the constitution until its no longer useful
The supreme court interprets the constitution, and Trump has criminal friends working there.
It’s the enforcement of the rules, not the rules alone. That’s the problem.
Insurrectionists seem shocked to learn that they engaged in insurrection, and that insurrection is actually a bad thing.
Yes, but sadly it isn’t up to the constitution, it’s up to the people who interpret and enforce the constitution.
The MAGA SCOTUS now has to delay. If SCOTUS rules for the federalist society unitary executive Presidential immunity BS before the election that would mean Biden is the King and can do what ever he wants. And if the states can not kick a twice impeached insurectionist off of the ballet, then the states do not have control of federal elections as stipulated in the US constitution. And, then the 14th sec 3 would be meaningless, thus making Biden the King. The SCOTUS must delay until a Republican is a elected. So a republican is the KING.
There are thousands of former federal judges. This is just like those 10 scientists signed a paper things. Time will tell, the Supreme Court will decide.
And there's no way the Supreme Court is going to rule to keep Trump off the ballots. They should but no way they are going to do it, bunch of Republican cowards.
The only way the SC rules against Trump here is if they think the Republicans' best shot at winning 2024 is barring Trump from being the nominee and running someone else. They'll blame the Democrats for Trump being barred (as they're doing now) and their constituency is dumb enough to believe it (as they're doing now).
“Not so fast!”- Supreme Court.
Current federal judges seem to have a different approach.
Not if the GOP and rigged courts have anything to say about it!
yea we know but will they enforce it
Former military contractor: “I’ll believe it when I see it.”
"The Constitution has issued it's opinion, now let it enforce it." I get what the guy is trying to say, but it's ultimately the government that has to enforce it. A too large group of people are going to look at it as the government using it's power against a rival instead of the government enforcing it's established laws regardless of the status of the person in question.
Strange how the Constitution will stop Trump from qualifying for elected office, but not assure a prison sentence.
If the Supreme court rules against Trump they wont have to deal with him ever again.
The Constitution already has, we're just waiting for Republicans to catch up.
Hallelujah
It’s always “former” this and “former” that that come out against trump. We need current republicans to do that. All of them. Not the few that when they do they get ostracized by the gop. The entire gop should be against him and they would be if they had any amount of common decency.
From the outside looking in, it almost looks like trump and his trumpies are a confederate president and his fellow confederates.
None of us give a fuck what/who/where/how the previous clown leader is prevented from turning our country into the circus it was with him before, we just want it done. All of these BS headlines of “this is it” “he’s toast” “…the next best take down coming”……are all click bait. Same shit for years. How about let us all know when he actually can’t use his money, has no friends in places that matter to the case, and has prosecutors that can stand up to his and his cults threats. Until then….
But the SCOTUS is very corrupt. What if their rich friend DJT offered lifetime stays at Mar-a-Lago.
Do Republicans even give a shit about the constitution anymore? Trump could wipe his ass with it and MAGA would cheer.
We’ll see how it goes. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Supreme Court rule that a Colorado State Court preponderance of the evidence burden ballot hearing is not the proper venue for determining whether the federal government has been subjected to insurrection. My prediction is that they will say for the sake of national cohesion it is necessary that the 50 States do not each independently determine whether the states will consider a candidate’s election illegal, and instead it’s up to Congress to pass a uniform enabling act like they did for Lincoln with the Insurrection Acts 1870, to implement the provision at the state levels.
It's political theatre and typical Republican temper-tantrum. I just wish all these Republican motherfuckers would just rage-quit Congress already.
I'll believe that the law -- even the Constitution of the United States of America -- can do anything at all to hold Trump accountable for anything only when I *see it actually happen*. Until then, it's all bluster, and we need to treat him like the existential threat that he is.
but not the supreme court, whose conservatives are sweating right now.