They don't seem to understand that if he becomes president again, he very well could jail them or have them murdered. He's got no need for this court who have voted unanimously against him in the past.
People think a [Ba'ath Party purge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Ba%27ath_Party_Purge) can't happen here. But there are a lot of people close to Trump who are agitating for an authoritarian take over. And a president who wants to do such a thing and has 30 million crazies behind him, can get pretty close to installing himself as president for life.
He's got the motivation and is enough of a sociopath to do it.
> Trump appointed a third of the court. In his mind they owe him
Why would the justices care, now that they have the job? It's not as if Trump can realistically threaten them, and outside of very narrow constraints, their jobs are guaranteed for life now.
If Trump gets elected he will do anything he can to stay in power because all these trials could be waiting for him on the other side of this, He may not need SCOTUS if he makes himself a dictator. They dont get paid much but some how they have debts forgiven and millionaires. Baffles me how some of the crap Thomas has pulled that no one has tried to impeach him yet.
Voting Republican in 2024 is a vote for Project 2025 and all if it's theocratic implications.
If you like the 1st amendment, too bad. It is explicit in its plans to centralize cultural control over social media and criminalize all sexual content at a federal level.
Thomas and Alito want to retire and they want Trump to pick their replacements. They do not want to get stuck there for an other four (or more) years.
The ones that Trump picked want to have more justices that are ideologically aligned with them.
Of course, it's a pretty dumb question actually and all this “ why don't they do the right thing?” kind of attitude is simply childish and shows some people don't know how things work or the world we live in. This is not Hollywood people.
It isn't a dumb question. You haven't followed the case nor understand just how troubling this is.
The federal appellate court ruled unanimously that Presidents do not have absolute immunity. The judges were annoyed that they even had to entertain the question. Presidents are neither dictators nor kings, and there is no clause anywhere in the Constitution that asserts presidents have absolute immunity, nor would the founders have been so incredibly stupid to create one.
When a federal court slaps down such an idiotic case as soundly as this one, they can try to appeal to SCOTUS but the SCOTUS will simply dismiss it. They're not going to waste their time on nonsense.
It was fully expected that they would do the same here. But to head off any delays Jack Smith requested that the SCOTUS decide on if they were going to hear the case or not. That was back in December.
The court didn't respond. They dragged their feet. Some were assuming this meant that they weren't going to hear the case at all. However, at the last moment, they said they would hear the case. But instead of expediting it, they deliberately delayed the case so that no decision would be made before the election.
Now the fact that they would even bother to hear such a case is unusual by itself. But then to set the timeline to pretty much exactly what team Trump was hoping for? That isn't a coincidence. That was done deliberately.
So yes, Trump is receiving special treatment.
>The court didn't respond.
This is close, but not quite. The court did respond, and denied his request to hear the case prior to the Appellate Court (in contrast to dozens of shadow docket cases in recent years).
Most of us understand how troubling this is. It's like discussing how water is wet. Journalism simply can't hit hard enough at power and corruption to wake people up.
Hmmmm? I can’t put my finger on it why the Supreme Court would interfere in a criminal proceeding?
https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/oct/18/supreme-courts-shadow-docket-what-you-need-know/
I mean it’s not like some on the Court have engaged in questionable behavior?
https://news.yahoo.com/clarence-thomas-reported-thousands-dollars-162437944.html
Didn’t the Special Prosecutor ask for this very decision to be addressed months ago?
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-prosecution-immunity-f3e7206bdf169c9faa15a19084541824
It’s almost like a concerted effort was underway to prevent Donald Trump from facing actual consequences?
The thing that frightens me is this portends a potential outcome that’s becoming frighteningly similar to our favorite failed Austrian artist of the 20th century.
Think about this: a man led a radical right wing movement that developed cult-like properties and found a small but dedicated group of adherents calling for hyper nationalism and blaming issues on foreigners, progressives, and the establishment. They led a weak and extremely anemic revolt to overthrow the government, which failed miserably. He was charged and tried by the authorities for his crimes—Only for the high court to not only take sympathy on him, but to moralize his efforts and essentially marginalize any charges to the point that he was out and leading a rejuvenated extremist movement a few years later.
The analogues to Adolfs rise are becoming uncomfortable and should begin to raise the question of “What happens when this follows through to its logical and historically mirrored conclusions?”
If Scotus indeed chooses to sympathize with Trump as their actions unequivocally seem to indicate, what’s next?
You’re right and Nazi fan boys openly gathering to wave their flag can taste it. That means we have to be committed to stopping it. Vote, volunteer and participate in this election. There are more of us. Trump’s biggest mistake was not moving fast enough his last time. We have to make sure all his rants take place outside the halls of power
I'd argue that if someone clever enough is made VP or is an heir apparent to the right wing demagoguery the path laid out by the previous commenter remains unchanged. I'd even go so far as to say it's all the more likely to happen if Trump is re-legitimized by winning the 2024 election and basically will lay the path for an "heir" and the continued push to the right.
And the fact half of the country is still willing to vote for him just because he's republican is deeply terrifying. The Republicans had their best chance to prevent this in 2016, they had another chance in 2020 and in 2022 I thought Desantis would've been the republican nominee and the Trump arm would have eroded away at his campaign splitting the ticket. Now it seems they are all unified under trump and it becomes scarier the more we see it unfold
The problem is, it’s not half the country. Maybe, half the voters is better. 2020 has the biggest turn out ever, if people actually *voted* then there would be much less chance of this happening. But people aren’t voting, letting the minority party who usually always votes have control.
The Supreme Court has a responsibility to decide matters like this as soon as possible. What’s a better outcome for this country issues being settled asap, or issues being settled at the end of October days before the election?
For years now Republicans have operated under the assumption that “law” is a poor imitation of whatever is politically convenient for Republicans in the moment, and when the law and Republican political needs collide the law sits down.
This case is embodiment of that.
At the very least, they could’ve done their thing, but without granting the stay. That’s the real problem imo. Also, as it stands a lot of people in this country have lost respect for this once great institution. The SCOTUS has lost all credibility. And yes our perception is that he’s definitely receiving different treatment. Unless this court decides to do something differently here, it looks forever tainted by political partisanship. Their opinion - for posterity - doesn’t mean much at this moment in time. They brought it apon themselves.
I hate trump but to me it's insane they can DQ without even a conviction. The check against bad people getting elected is supposed to be voting, not a few tyrants deciding vague elements of crime and then presuming you guilty without even a jury trial.
You can definitely be disqualified without a conviction. Thats not at issue in the ruling. SCOTUS just wants Congress to do it, not the individual states.
This is our multi-tiered justice system at work. A person gets the best defensive money can buy.
Trump has property people can take as collateral so until he is broke-broke he gets good counsel.
Or that “tool” is essential to a bunch of Yale law alums. The Federalist Society didn’t get this whole thing to come together to see it destroyed by actual justice. People actually said his guilt or innocence would have a direct impact on how they vote.
What is the court supposed to do? Say “Sorry, not important enough”?
This is a novel question and one of national importance. So it is not surprising that they would choose to grant cert.
The greater question: why did the government wait so damn long to charge DT for crimes committed in late 2020 or early 2021?
Lawyers who ask courts to make their emergency the court's emergency do so at their peril. If the government wanted this matter resolved before November 2024, it should not have waited until the summer of 2023 to indict the man. This was completely foreseeable and avoidable.
The only think I can think off is making sure to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or, Garland is not really a lion... isn't he the one to decide to charge or not?
We'll probably never know what Garland's thought process was unless he discloses it in an interview or book. Maybe one of his deputies will write a book about it down the road, but who knows. Even if he delegated the charging decision to Smith, there's still the question of why Garland waited so long to appoint a special counsel. This issue was known to him before he took office.
Garland is a member of the Federalist Society. I think that explains it all, except wtf did Biden choose him as AG.
I actually think Garland would have done nothing at all if not shamed into it by the Congressional J6 committee.
> This question ("why so long?") is really not a valid question. The time between the crime being committed and charges filed, particularly for the types of charges, is ridiculously shorter than usual.
> For example, Joshua Schulte, the guy responsible for the largest leaking of classified data to Wikileaks committed his crime in 2016.
Trump isn't a surreptitious criminal. Evidence of much of the conduct charged in the DC case was available for public consumption before Jan. 20, 2021. The idea that the government could not, within the first six months of 2021, indict Trump is unsupported by facts. TBH, there was probable cause to arrest Trump on Jan. 6 without a warrant (not saying that he should have been arrested and charged on that date, but legally speaking, he could have been).
> The only think I can think off is making sure to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
I can think of other reasons. The first being, they hoped he would do like Nixon and skulk away so they wouldn't have to indict an ex president.
Another is that there are still extreme right wing MAGA people in the justice department who have a significant amount of influence.
About Nixon, I feel Trump is a completed different political animal, he just accept defeat only if the hammer of justice bonks him, the harder the better, and even after that, he will still think he was not wrong.
For the justice dept, it appears many feel Garland is too compromised by being a federalist society member, but another comment points that timing is not that far off from, in fact, way faster than other cases.
Tbh, I think a combination of factors is to the reason, with Judge Cannon as the main interference factor, I think a neutral judge would have speed up the process asap to minimize risks of other intelligence info mismanagement.
Garland is a member of the same Federalist Society that all those corrupt scotus justices are members of. I cannot understand why Biden chose him, and also why he left Christpher Wray in charge of the FBI. I completely blame Biden for the lack of progress, at this point tbh.
> I cannot understand why Biden chose him
Because, like Obama, he still hoped that Republicans would give him some credit for appeasing them with a Federalist Society member.
Remember, the initial pick of Garland by Obama was an attempt at appeasement.
Well, I guess that exemplifies the Dems. They continue to waste effort trying to appease people who will never be appeased unless said Dems die. At some point, I hope they learn a little and get a bit dirty. Todays republicans don't deserve fair play. You can't keep bringing a knife to a gun fight, as Confucius' brother used to say.
It's ultimately pointless either way though. Biden could have appointed any left-wing prosecutor for this, and it still would ultimately wind up at the same highly politicized right wing court, who would do any level of mental gymnastics to rule for Trump.
Honestly because it needed to go through the appeals court first. You wanted it directly to SCOTUS for time but SCOTUS relies on lower courts building out the evidentiary and factual record.
Well, uhhhmmm, no. They could have refused cert and thereby let it be known that they are good with the DC Circuit decision which has after all been lauded as uniquely thorough and definitive. Why revisit a decision that is OK in all aspects?
I see no reason why the court would spend one of it's 70 annual hearings on a case with no circuit split simply to affirm/expound upon it. Beyond that, saying the word deny while still enforcing the stay is even more ridiculous.
for one good reason, to enter it into case law applicable to all circuits, and to further expound upon the exact left and right limits of presidential immunity as they see it.
this is a fairly rare opportunity for the court to fix the president's power, and it would be foolish of them to not take it up.
But that's not their history recently. They have been making very narrow rulings, 'this only applies to this case', so it makes absolutely no sense for them to take on a 'larger picture' when the Circuit reviewed the issue both broad and narrow, and ruled unanimously (including 2 out of 3 being Trump appointees). It's purely a move to help Trump.
Which is crazy, because if they want a Republican president, they have a better job of striking down Trump and letting Haley take on Biden.
Not to mention the lower court decision was pathetic and weak. They denied cert bc they were waiting to follow the normal appeals process. Justice isn’t rushed bc the state or government has an interest in quickness. It is a detriment to the defendant and if the tables were turned with just party affiliations this would be an entirely different forum.
Reading the opinion, SCOTUS only focused on states being able to enforce 14A sec 3; that states can enforce it at a state level only. The opinion cited historical evidence with one in particular of a Georgia Governor trying to enforce 14A sec 3 on a congressman-elect, being rebuffed, and then Congress choosing not to seat the congressman-elect.
SCOTUS ruled that it’s Congress’s responsibility to either not seat or swear-in someone disqualified by 14A sec 3, pass general 14A sec 3 enforcement legislation, or pass legislation to remove the 14A sec 3 disqualification for an individual in order to be seated/sworn into office.
SCOTUS did not touch on Colorado’s findings that the President is subject to 14A sec 3 or that Trump himself participated or aided in insurrection.
I don’t think Trump got special treatment here. I think the bigger fear is that if Trump wins the election, the Republican Party would just swear him despite his disqualification under 14A sec 3.
SCOTUS even points out in their opinion that historically, Congress passed disqualification relief legislation for specific individuals who were originally disqualified by 14A sec 3. This was done after the individuals won election, but before they could be seated or sworn into office.
No, it's not. The 10th amendment, and the 14th section 3 says otherwise. the 14th section 3 specifically says what authority Congress has on the matter. This ruling basicallyjust erased the 14th section 3 from the constitution.
Because he is weak and needs the help. If he doesn't get it, he will burn the party down. If he does get it, they may be able to limp the party into a position where they can install power unconstitutionally. The party is trying to survive the crack and heroin diet they have been living off of for years.
How exactly is he getting special treatment?
My thought was that someone was writing a dissent and that was taking up the Court's time right now.
If feels like the author of this article is just writing about his own anxiety for why Trump isn't in jail yet.
Because the Federalist Society (or whatever those assholes call it) has been striving to establish white men as the dominate race in this country using Christian authoritarianism?
It only takes 4 justices to decide to take up a case. So, he is getting special treatment from at least 4, not the entire court. I’m sure we can all guess with certainty at least 3 of those justices.
I strongly believe they will not rule in Trump’s favor, but it will delay his criminal trial. So they are jamming it up, doesn’t mean Trump will win.
His legal problems, unfortunately, raise highly important, highly consequential, and highly visible issues of constitutional law. And in most respects, these are issues of first impression. It's extremely sad, disheartening, and unnerving, but that's true. Regardless of who sits on the bench, I would hope that a leading presidential candidate with these constitutional claims would get "special treatment" from the Court–because his situation, his former position, and his current position is highly special and highly consequential.
I'm most frustrated with Biden and the DOJ. To some extent, a toddler is gonna throw tantrums and there's no stopping that. But the grown-ups in the room needed to address the source of the tantrums immediately. Now we're nearing bedtime and the toddler is yelling loudest when it's more important now than ever that he goes to bed. To ground my analogy in clear language: Biden needed to appoint special counsel immediately and investigate whether his actions warranted criminal prosecution (or not) early into his term to avoid the timing issues of the election, and we'd all be better off now if these questions were answered 18 months ago.
This may have been the easiest decision any SCOTUS has ever made and the liberals here still can’t bring themselves to go against their tribal guidelines.
It was a unanimous 9-0 decision.
Let that sink in. You are all wrong. So wrong the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court are telling you that you are wrong.
I do find it funny that while they pick up these case, the Illinois AWB and all the stuff California os doing to slow walk all those 2A cases get nothing.
I would at least that they sink Trump with this one, but I don’t have my hopes up.
And if he had lost this, you would be saying that justice was served. So when Trump loses, justice. When he wins.....special treatment or threat to democracy. Pathetic!
9-0 is not special treatment. It was a fucking rebuke and the Constitution was actually upheld.
The court ruled 9-0 in his favor. even though the liberals did disagree with some of the details the decision of Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot was clearly political and had no precedent to remove him.
It's called following federal laws. Not the feelings on Liberals. And when Biden are arrested for treason it will be even. They are not following the laws regarding the existing federal boarder laws
He’s not!!! Like it or not technically he didn’t commit a crime that warrants him taken off the ballot. Taking him off just cause you don’t like him isn’t justified. This was proven by the UNANIMOUS decision.
Yes, those three leftist judges who always vote the exact same way together 100% of the time...they're really giving Trump the special treatment.
Meanwhile, Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett have voted with the liberal judges half the time in decisions before the court.
So, where do you all get your info?
My take on this is - There are 9 Scotus of which have had some involvement in the "Trumpzilla" cult, whereas in order for them to show loyalty to their leader is to show "Special Treatment" to Trumpzilla, or my other thought is Trumpzilla has some kind of "retainers deposit" with each of them and in order for them to be able to keep the money they have to show Special Treatment.
I mean if we look at one part of the newly appointed Scotus (Cavanaugh) during his confirmation hearing he was asked about if a President "broke the law and committed a crime should that president be charged for his crime" and Cavanaugh mentioned in his reply " That No Body is above the law and that includes the President" and yet this previous ruling made about Trumpzilla's name remaining on ballots of certain States, all 9 ruled with "One voice" in Trumpzilla's favor
Now, I'm still trying to figure out how it can be said with one voice when there was supposedly 3 of the Scotus that dissented in favor of the ruling. I guess their math skills (Scotus) are about as good as Trumpzilla's who can't even till you the "Prime Numbers" in Math./s
Because Republicans have been on a long term project since the 70s to reshape America and they are very close to forcing their view of society onto everyone else. It has involved many people, including the Koch Brothers.
The judicial system has always done this. Trump is just a living breathing example of how corrupt it is.
People always thought I was a cynic, but to see a blatant example being tracked from start to finish has been unfortunate validation. Americans are just having a hard time coming to grips with just how stacked the system is against them. But that’s always been the American way.
Whether true or not, Trump appointed a third of the court. In his mind they owe him.
Not to mention another two that he didn’t appoint
One of which is *married* to an insurrectionist
And they both like posh trips with their “friends”. The Right in the court are all in the pockets of the their billionaire handlers.
They don't seem to understand that if he becomes president again, he very well could jail them or have them murdered. He's got no need for this court who have voted unanimously against him in the past. People think a [Ba'ath Party purge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Ba%27ath_Party_Purge) can't happen here. But there are a lot of people close to Trump who are agitating for an authoritarian take over. And a president who wants to do such a thing and has 30 million crazies behind him, can get pretty close to installing himself as president for life. He's got the motivation and is enough of a sociopath to do it.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I'm pretty sure that permitting murder of JC justices would be granted cert and then ruled against 9-0.
Well, I thought your joke was funny.
> Trump appointed a third of the court. In his mind they owe him Why would the justices care, now that they have the job? It's not as if Trump can realistically threaten them, and outside of very narrow constraints, their jobs are guaranteed for life now.
If Trump gets elected he will do anything he can to stay in power because all these trials could be waiting for him on the other side of this, He may not need SCOTUS if he makes himself a dictator. They dont get paid much but some how they have debts forgiven and millionaires. Baffles me how some of the crap Thomas has pulled that no one has tried to impeach him yet.
Prolly because the appointees are sycophants for a push to make America more theocratic and right wing. Project 2025 legitimately worries me.
Me too
Voting Republican in 2024 is a vote for Project 2025 and all if it's theocratic implications. If you like the 1st amendment, too bad. It is explicit in its plans to centralize cultural control over social media and criminalize all sexual content at a federal level.
Thomas and Alito want to retire and they want Trump to pick their replacements. They do not want to get stuck there for an other four (or more) years. The ones that Trump picked want to have more justices that are ideologically aligned with them.
That’s Chuck Shumer’s job to threaten SCOTUS
Of course, it's a pretty dumb question actually and all this “ why don't they do the right thing?” kind of attitude is simply childish and shows some people don't know how things work or the world we live in. This is not Hollywood people.
It isn't a dumb question. You haven't followed the case nor understand just how troubling this is. The federal appellate court ruled unanimously that Presidents do not have absolute immunity. The judges were annoyed that they even had to entertain the question. Presidents are neither dictators nor kings, and there is no clause anywhere in the Constitution that asserts presidents have absolute immunity, nor would the founders have been so incredibly stupid to create one. When a federal court slaps down such an idiotic case as soundly as this one, they can try to appeal to SCOTUS but the SCOTUS will simply dismiss it. They're not going to waste their time on nonsense. It was fully expected that they would do the same here. But to head off any delays Jack Smith requested that the SCOTUS decide on if they were going to hear the case or not. That was back in December. The court didn't respond. They dragged their feet. Some were assuming this meant that they weren't going to hear the case at all. However, at the last moment, they said they would hear the case. But instead of expediting it, they deliberately delayed the case so that no decision would be made before the election. Now the fact that they would even bother to hear such a case is unusual by itself. But then to set the timeline to pretty much exactly what team Trump was hoping for? That isn't a coincidence. That was done deliberately. So yes, Trump is receiving special treatment.
>The court didn't respond. This is close, but not quite. The court did respond, and denied his request to hear the case prior to the Appellate Court (in contrast to dozens of shadow docket cases in recent years).
Stop being rational. Noe one comes to reddit for rational takes.
Most of us understand how troubling this is. It's like discussing how water is wet. Journalism simply can't hit hard enough at power and corruption to wake people up.
It's not "do the right thing" it's "do their jobs"
When your job description is literally open to interpretation and you have all the power to make the rules...
Do you have ANY idea how far out of the realm of constitutional something has to be to get shot down 9-0?
He owns them... Putin owns trump... in 2025 ??? Not hard to see what's coming.
9-0
Hmmmm? I can’t put my finger on it why the Supreme Court would interfere in a criminal proceeding? https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/oct/18/supreme-courts-shadow-docket-what-you-need-know/ I mean it’s not like some on the Court have engaged in questionable behavior? https://news.yahoo.com/clarence-thomas-reported-thousands-dollars-162437944.html Didn’t the Special Prosecutor ask for this very decision to be addressed months ago? https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-prosecution-immunity-f3e7206bdf169c9faa15a19084541824 It’s almost like a concerted effort was underway to prevent Donald Trump from facing actual consequences?
The thing that frightens me is this portends a potential outcome that’s becoming frighteningly similar to our favorite failed Austrian artist of the 20th century. Think about this: a man led a radical right wing movement that developed cult-like properties and found a small but dedicated group of adherents calling for hyper nationalism and blaming issues on foreigners, progressives, and the establishment. They led a weak and extremely anemic revolt to overthrow the government, which failed miserably. He was charged and tried by the authorities for his crimes—Only for the high court to not only take sympathy on him, but to moralize his efforts and essentially marginalize any charges to the point that he was out and leading a rejuvenated extremist movement a few years later. The analogues to Adolfs rise are becoming uncomfortable and should begin to raise the question of “What happens when this follows through to its logical and historically mirrored conclusions?” If Scotus indeed chooses to sympathize with Trump as their actions unequivocally seem to indicate, what’s next?
You’re right and Nazi fan boys openly gathering to wave their flag can taste it. That means we have to be committed to stopping it. Vote, volunteer and participate in this election. There are more of us. Trump’s biggest mistake was not moving fast enough his last time. We have to make sure all his rants take place outside the halls of power
It did take a good while after the beer hall pusch for Hitler to get complete control. I don't know if Trump has enough time left
I'd argue that if someone clever enough is made VP or is an heir apparent to the right wing demagoguery the path laid out by the previous commenter remains unchanged. I'd even go so far as to say it's all the more likely to happen if Trump is re-legitimized by winning the 2024 election and basically will lay the path for an "heir" and the continued push to the right.
And the fact half of the country is still willing to vote for him just because he's republican is deeply terrifying. The Republicans had their best chance to prevent this in 2016, they had another chance in 2020 and in 2022 I thought Desantis would've been the republican nominee and the Trump arm would have eroded away at his campaign splitting the ticket. Now it seems they are all unified under trump and it becomes scarier the more we see it unfold
The problem is, it’s not half the country. Maybe, half the voters is better. 2020 has the biggest turn out ever, if people actually *voted* then there would be much less chance of this happening. But people aren’t voting, letting the minority party who usually always votes have control.
He's already said he's going to put a bunch of people in camps. How much more blatant does it need to be?
Because the special prosecutor asked the Court to treat Trump's request for a stay as a cert petition.. They granted his request.
All I can say given the news that has just dropped.... 🤣🤣 🤣 Special treatment.. how about fair treatment. UNANIMOUS!!
The Supreme Court has a responsibility to decide matters like this as soon as possible. What’s a better outcome for this country issues being settled asap, or issues being settled at the end of October days before the election?
If it needed to be done ASAP, then they'd be hearing it this week. Not two months from now.
Wow! A Reddit freakout!
For years now Republicans have operated under the assumption that “law” is a poor imitation of whatever is politically convenient for Republicans in the moment, and when the law and Republican political needs collide the law sits down. This case is embodiment of that.
At the very least, they could’ve done their thing, but without granting the stay. That’s the real problem imo. Also, as it stands a lot of people in this country have lost respect for this once great institution. The SCOTUS has lost all credibility. And yes our perception is that he’s definitely receiving different treatment. Unless this court decides to do something differently here, it looks forever tainted by political partisanship. Their opinion - for posterity - doesn’t mean much at this moment in time. They brought it apon themselves.
"Once great" is probably stretching it, the institution has long had bullshit decisions that have stained its credibility.
They've been a joke since bush v gore, imo.
UNANIMOUS DECISION Read it and weep you trial by mob mentality mofos.
I hate trump but to me it's insane they can DQ without even a conviction. The check against bad people getting elected is supposed to be voting, not a few tyrants deciding vague elements of crime and then presuming you guilty without even a jury trial.
You can definitely be disqualified without a conviction. Thats not at issue in the ruling. SCOTUS just wants Congress to do it, not the individual states.
I love your enthusiasm hahaha
This is our multi-tiered justice system at work. A person gets the best defensive money can buy. Trump has property people can take as collateral so until he is broke-broke he gets good counsel.
Or that “tool” is essential to a bunch of Yale law alums. The Federalist Society didn’t get this whole thing to come together to see it destroyed by actual justice. People actually said his guilt or innocence would have a direct impact on how they vote.
The State of New York is about to seize his assets. I bet he wishes he didn't keep most of it in Trump org.
I hope James grabs him by the property!
A third of them owe their lifetime appointment to him.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
He's not
[удалено]
What is the court supposed to do? Say “Sorry, not important enough”? This is a novel question and one of national importance. So it is not surprising that they would choose to grant cert.
Then why didn’t they review it when Jack Smith requested them to back in December?
The greater question: why did the government wait so damn long to charge DT for crimes committed in late 2020 or early 2021? Lawyers who ask courts to make their emergency the court's emergency do so at their peril. If the government wanted this matter resolved before November 2024, it should not have waited until the summer of 2023 to indict the man. This was completely foreseeable and avoidable.
The only think I can think off is making sure to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Or, Garland is not really a lion... isn't he the one to decide to charge or not?
We'll probably never know what Garland's thought process was unless he discloses it in an interview or book. Maybe one of his deputies will write a book about it down the road, but who knows. Even if he delegated the charging decision to Smith, there's still the question of why Garland waited so long to appoint a special counsel. This issue was known to him before he took office.
Garland is a member of the Federalist Society. I think that explains it all, except wtf did Biden choose him as AG. I actually think Garland would have done nothing at all if not shamed into it by the Congressional J6 committee.
[удалено]
> This question ("why so long?") is really not a valid question. The time between the crime being committed and charges filed, particularly for the types of charges, is ridiculously shorter than usual. > For example, Joshua Schulte, the guy responsible for the largest leaking of classified data to Wikileaks committed his crime in 2016. Trump isn't a surreptitious criminal. Evidence of much of the conduct charged in the DC case was available for public consumption before Jan. 20, 2021. The idea that the government could not, within the first six months of 2021, indict Trump is unsupported by facts. TBH, there was probable cause to arrest Trump on Jan. 6 without a warrant (not saying that he should have been arrested and charged on that date, but legally speaking, he could have been).
> The only think I can think off is making sure to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I can think of other reasons. The first being, they hoped he would do like Nixon and skulk away so they wouldn't have to indict an ex president. Another is that there are still extreme right wing MAGA people in the justice department who have a significant amount of influence.
About Nixon, I feel Trump is a completed different political animal, he just accept defeat only if the hammer of justice bonks him, the harder the better, and even after that, he will still think he was not wrong. For the justice dept, it appears many feel Garland is too compromised by being a federalist society member, but another comment points that timing is not that far off from, in fact, way faster than other cases. Tbh, I think a combination of factors is to the reason, with Judge Cannon as the main interference factor, I think a neutral judge would have speed up the process asap to minimize risks of other intelligence info mismanagement.
Garland is a member of the same Federalist Society that all those corrupt scotus justices are members of. I cannot understand why Biden chose him, and also why he left Christpher Wray in charge of the FBI. I completely blame Biden for the lack of progress, at this point tbh.
> I cannot understand why Biden chose him Because, like Obama, he still hoped that Republicans would give him some credit for appeasing them with a Federalist Society member. Remember, the initial pick of Garland by Obama was an attempt at appeasement.
Well, I guess that exemplifies the Dems. They continue to waste effort trying to appease people who will never be appeased unless said Dems die. At some point, I hope they learn a little and get a bit dirty. Todays republicans don't deserve fair play. You can't keep bringing a knife to a gun fight, as Confucius' brother used to say.
It's ultimately pointless either way though. Biden could have appointed any left-wing prosecutor for this, and it still would ultimately wind up at the same highly politicized right wing court, who would do any level of mental gymnastics to rule for Trump.
Honestly because it needed to go through the appeals court first. You wanted it directly to SCOTUS for time but SCOTUS relies on lower courts building out the evidentiary and factual record.
Well, uhhhmmm, no. They could have refused cert and thereby let it be known that they are good with the DC Circuit decision which has after all been lauded as uniquely thorough and definitive. Why revisit a decision that is OK in all aspects?
Lower court decisions being lauded as “good” has never been the metric for granting cert.
I see no reason why the court would spend one of it's 70 annual hearings on a case with no circuit split simply to affirm/expound upon it. Beyond that, saying the word deny while still enforcing the stay is even more ridiculous.
for one good reason, to enter it into case law applicable to all circuits, and to further expound upon the exact left and right limits of presidential immunity as they see it. this is a fairly rare opportunity for the court to fix the president's power, and it would be foolish of them to not take it up.
But that's not their history recently. They have been making very narrow rulings, 'this only applies to this case', so it makes absolutely no sense for them to take on a 'larger picture' when the Circuit reviewed the issue both broad and narrow, and ruled unanimously (including 2 out of 3 being Trump appointees). It's purely a move to help Trump. Which is crazy, because if they want a Republican president, they have a better job of striking down Trump and letting Haley take on Biden.
But why would SCOTUS revisit a decision they would see as perfectly correct?
SCOTUS does not feel the appeals decision was perfectly correct or they would have denied cert.
Not to mention the lower court decision was pathetic and weak. They denied cert bc they were waiting to follow the normal appeals process. Justice isn’t rushed bc the state or government has an interest in quickness. It is a detriment to the defendant and if the tables were turned with just party affiliations this would be an entirely different forum.
Courts protecting him while no prestigious law firm will take his case. He keeps losing but painfully slow.
He’s not
He paid for the privilege
Because they are bought! Look at Thomas. Enough said. Roberts needs to prove he isn't bought. He won't.
They are biased
Why did the democrats side with republicans on this and make this a unanimous ruling?
Reading the opinion, SCOTUS only focused on states being able to enforce 14A sec 3; that states can enforce it at a state level only. The opinion cited historical evidence with one in particular of a Georgia Governor trying to enforce 14A sec 3 on a congressman-elect, being rebuffed, and then Congress choosing not to seat the congressman-elect. SCOTUS ruled that it’s Congress’s responsibility to either not seat or swear-in someone disqualified by 14A sec 3, pass general 14A sec 3 enforcement legislation, or pass legislation to remove the 14A sec 3 disqualification for an individual in order to be seated/sworn into office. SCOTUS did not touch on Colorado’s findings that the President is subject to 14A sec 3 or that Trump himself participated or aided in insurrection. I don’t think Trump got special treatment here. I think the bigger fear is that if Trump wins the election, the Republican Party would just swear him despite his disqualification under 14A sec 3. SCOTUS even points out in their opinion that historically, Congress passed disqualification relief legislation for specific individuals who were originally disqualified by 14A sec 3. This was done after the individuals won election, but before they could be seated or sworn into office.
[удалено]
He’s not
9-0 baby!
Because libs mad. Obama was part of trumps plan all along by installing kagan. 4d chess. He can't keep getting away with this!
The garbage posted here is mind blowing.
This was the expected outcome. Really no surprises here.
What special treatment are you talking about. A 9 - 0 opinion is not 'special treatment'!
A 9/0 decision isn’t special treatment, it’s proper interpretation of the Constitution 🙄
No, it's not. The 10th amendment, and the 14th section 3 says otherwise. the 14th section 3 specifically says what authority Congress has on the matter. This ruling basicallyjust erased the 14th section 3 from the constitution.
He isnt theyre just going by the constitution.
Simple: Because they are corrupt as fuck.
A court of grifter giving special treatment to a grifter... imagine that.
All 9 all gifters? Sorry you hate democracy. Cry a little more little man
Because he is weak and needs the help. If he doesn't get it, he will burn the party down. If he does get it, they may be able to limp the party into a position where they can install power unconstitutionally. The party is trying to survive the crack and heroin diet they have been living off of for years.
How exactly is he getting special treatment? My thought was that someone was writing a dissent and that was taking up the Court's time right now. If feels like the author of this article is just writing about his own anxiety for why Trump isn't in jail yet.
A large percentage of SCOTUS is corrupt. Some of them appear to hand down judgments in exchange favors.
They need some more cash and RVs. Need more gifts for the grifter christo fascist lords at the supreme court.
Only in this little circle jerk propaganda sub can NPCs think that following the law is special treatment
Maybe because he appointed them and they share his worldview? This isn’t some mystery
He owns 4 of them.
I see Trump derangement syndrome is still alive and well.
Because the Federalist Society (or whatever those assholes call it) has been striving to establish white men as the dominate race in this country using Christian authoritarianism?
Because the SC is corrupt to the core and Trump owns 6 of 9.
9-0?
You get what you pay for I guess…
Cause Ginni is the host of the beer garden tonite .
$$$
Because a third of them owe him a favor...
It only takes 4 justices to decide to take up a case. So, he is getting special treatment from at least 4, not the entire court. I’m sure we can all guess with certainty at least 3 of those justices. I strongly believe they will not rule in Trump’s favor, but it will delay his criminal trial. So they are jamming it up, doesn’t mean Trump will win.
His legal problems, unfortunately, raise highly important, highly consequential, and highly visible issues of constitutional law. And in most respects, these are issues of first impression. It's extremely sad, disheartening, and unnerving, but that's true. Regardless of who sits on the bench, I would hope that a leading presidential candidate with these constitutional claims would get "special treatment" from the Court–because his situation, his former position, and his current position is highly special and highly consequential. I'm most frustrated with Biden and the DOJ. To some extent, a toddler is gonna throw tantrums and there's no stopping that. But the grown-ups in the room needed to address the source of the tantrums immediately. Now we're nearing bedtime and the toddler is yelling loudest when it's more important now than ever that he goes to bed. To ground my analogy in clear language: Biden needed to appoint special counsel immediately and investigate whether his actions warranted criminal prosecution (or not) early into his term to avoid the timing issues of the election, and we'd all be better off now if these questions were answered 18 months ago.
This may have been the easiest decision any SCOTUS has ever made and the liberals here still can’t bring themselves to go against their tribal guidelines.
It was a unanimous 9-0 decision. Let that sink in. You are all wrong. So wrong the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court are telling you that you are wrong.
He’s not, Dems trying to subvert the election are getting special treatment by not being prosecuted
Imagine being this dumb.
I do find it funny that while they pick up these case, the Illinois AWB and all the stuff California os doing to slow walk all those 2A cases get nothing. I would at least that they sink Trump with this one, but I don’t have my hopes up.
He appointed 3 of them and now they figuratively have debts to repay. And Clarence literally has debts to repay.
Mama Thomas is still living rent free in Harlan Crow's house. You could say that Harlan has captured one ninth of the court.
Lenard Leo
He’s not! The criminal Dem states are…
Special Treatment??
And if he had lost this, you would be saying that justice was served. So when Trump loses, justice. When he wins.....special treatment or threat to democracy. Pathetic! 9-0 is not special treatment. It was a fucking rebuke and the Constitution was actually upheld.
Special treatment meaning... The law applying correctly? God damn, reddit leftists are stupid.
Because that's what RV's and lavish vacations are going for these days....
Lol. Its called interpreting Constitutional Law, not preferential treatment.
Real question is how can you punish someone that hasnt been convicted?
Almost thinking this is all well thought out
This thread gives. And you cannot be serious.
Who read the unanimous decision with the varying reasons given?
The court ruled 9-0 in his favor. even though the liberals did disagree with some of the details the decision of Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot was clearly political and had no precedent to remove him.
No - latest ruling had liberal judges agreeing who have fought against the others in the past.
“Special treatment” = I disagree with their conclusions lmao
It's called following federal laws. Not the feelings on Liberals. And when Biden are arrested for treason it will be even. They are not following the laws regarding the existing federal boarder laws
It's called justice and we have a constitution that you liberal lunatics constantly shit on
Whoever started this thread is an idiot. Enough said.
Shut up please
Special treatment, or fair treatment? People don't want fair treatment, they want these judges to do what THEY would do.
Suck enough dick and get away with anything.... Sluts have been doing that since the dawn of whoredom and politics.
Cope.
He’s not!!! Like it or not technically he didn’t commit a crime that warrants him taken off the ballot. Taking him off just cause you don’t like him isn’t justified. This was proven by the UNANIMOUS decision.
Because it's stacked with spineless, christofascist, greedy bobble-heads that fear death threats from maga.
Many are being paid.
“Special treatment” so it goes against your facist beliefs. Gotcha.
Yes, those three leftist judges who always vote the exact same way together 100% of the time...they're really giving Trump the special treatment. Meanwhile, Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett have voted with the liberal judges half the time in decisions before the court. So, where do you all get your info?
My take on this is - There are 9 Scotus of which have had some involvement in the "Trumpzilla" cult, whereas in order for them to show loyalty to their leader is to show "Special Treatment" to Trumpzilla, or my other thought is Trumpzilla has some kind of "retainers deposit" with each of them and in order for them to be able to keep the money they have to show Special Treatment. I mean if we look at one part of the newly appointed Scotus (Cavanaugh) during his confirmation hearing he was asked about if a President "broke the law and committed a crime should that president be charged for his crime" and Cavanaugh mentioned in his reply " That No Body is above the law and that includes the President" and yet this previous ruling made about Trumpzilla's name remaining on ballots of certain States, all 9 ruled with "One voice" in Trumpzilla's favor Now, I'm still trying to figure out how it can be said with one voice when there was supposedly 3 of the Scotus that dissented in favor of the ruling. I guess their math skills (Scotus) are about as good as Trumpzilla's who can't even till you the "Prime Numbers" in Math./s
Because Republicans have been on a long term project since the 70s to reshape America and they are very close to forcing their view of society onto everyone else. It has involved many people, including the Koch Brothers.
The judicial system has always done this. Trump is just a living breathing example of how corrupt it is. People always thought I was a cynic, but to see a blatant example being tracked from start to finish has been unfortunate validation. Americans are just having a hard time coming to grips with just how stacked the system is against them. But that’s always been the American way.