Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Trump’s Immunity Claim, Setting Arguments for April

[Uncensored2008]

We're not really a nation of laws or accountability anymore.

Kinda sad.

When Clinton was declared immune to laws that was sad.

When it was later expanded to ALL democrats are immune to laws - that's criminal.

We are changing that come November. Not only is the Bill of Rights going to be restored - so too the rule of law.

Obviously democrats will become violent over both events - and the Rittenhouse remedy will be invoked.

 

[Lionfish]

poor crybabies. it is now the season where they cry about how unfair the delay is....when they purposely slow walked things to maximize damage in 2022

You nailed it right there.

 

[Lionfish]

Should have “winded up” there in December when Smith requested the Court take it up, that is the first error here, it was all a orchestrated scheme designed to push any trial out beyond the election

Poor anchovies, Looks like the dems outsmarted themselves. Waiting until just before the election was their plan all along.
BTW, I have no faith in Roberts BUT, I will support any decision the SC comes up with.

 

[Stone]

Unfortunately, I doubt we, the voters, can.

Only six states really in contention...and Trump does not actually have to win any of them. All he has to do is get state officials to throw shade at the results. All he has to do is to deny Joe Biden the Electoral College win. Then the election gets thrown into the House...and it becomes a sure win for the Republicans.

We are fucked.

Yes,...you ARE indeed fucked, but not for the reasons you think. No sir,....we will win this election fair and square. We are mobilized and DRIVEN!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not encouraging. I hope the Supreme Court upholds the law.

They will, Nixon v. Fitzgerald. After which the democrats will riot.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Nah. I don't see it that way. Trump tried to put election deniers in positions that will allow him to do that. He failed. Trump and the Republicans are going to be destroyed up and down the ballot. Republicans are underperforming in every single election. And Trump is flailing at this point. He's unhinged. I'm not worried. He is in a far worse position to steal this election than he was the last time.

Hope you are right.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yes,...you ARE indeed fucked, but not for the reasons you think. No sir,....we will win this election fair and square. We are mobilized and DRIVEN!

We are all fucked...INCLUDING YOU DELUDED TRUMP ASSKISSERS...for the reasons I suggested. Joe Biden won the last election fair and square...just as Trump won the 2016 election fair and square.

You people have now been ordered to accept that any election that does not go your way...was not fair and square.

Okay...now continue with your delusions.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Any insane electorate that could elect 2016 Trump can elect 2024 Trump as well;
and now, thanks to Sinema and Manchin not letting Biden repair SCOTUS,
he has his own SCOTUS too.

This nation includes tens of millions of despicable, deplorable, depraved, diseased, deficient, decadent, and obviously devolved mutants,
and with the fucked up constitution imposed on us by our batshit crazy founders,
they can pull off another electoral college win.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Yes it would be. However a president does not have the power to do so. Only Congress can do so. Let’s take a look at the two possibilities that exist to expand the court. Trump wins and has majorities in both houses. Attempting to expand the court would be a minor power grab compared to the other plans he has. I doubt he’d waste his time, he already has a rubber stamp court. If Biden is in the same position, it’s easy to justify expanding the court by two members. I’d say Democrats should do four just to make sure. That along with getting rid of the filibuster, passing a new voting rights act and passing the border bill, single payer health care, a one time wealth task, income tax reform, entitlement reform, codifying Roe v. Wade, passing protections for the LGBTQ population, and strengthening consumer and environmental protections. That should fix a lot of the damage.

It's not so much to ask for, and these measures would benefit our RW friends as well. Therefore, they'll oppose them.

 

[Jarod]

Nobody will ever know why the Supreme Court slow walked this decision, but it is within their authority and mandate.

We must trust the system.

 

[Jarod]

Nobody will ever know why the Supreme Court slow walked this decision, but it is within their authority and mandate.

We must trust the system.

I suspect things would be different. Had the Republican senate, not manipulated the process and prevented Merrick Garland from taking the seat he was appointed to.

 

[Concart]

It's not so much to ask for, and these measures would benefit our RW friends as well. Therefore, they'll oppose them.

It won't matter. They will have no control over anything. The filibuster is going to disappear, and Democrats will pass anything they feel like passing. The above list would go a long way towards undoing the damage that Trump and his cult have caused in this country.

 

[Concart]

Nobody will ever know why the Supreme Court slow walked this decision, but it is within their authority and mandate.

We must trust the system.

I can't think of that many scenarios that are excusable. The Supreme Court is taking up a case to decide whether we now have a King. Huh? If I was a betting man, I'd bet this decision was 5-4. Which again shows how much damage Mitch McConnell has done to the courts. The ONLY reason I can see for them taking up the case now after they had decided not to hear it is the fact that the argument is being pursued in another district. Either way, it's pretty obvious that this will be Judge Cannons excuse for pushing the trial date back by months when the hearing happens today.

That said, if this decision is fast tracked and the case can be set for trial, I don't give a fuck if the trial starts on October 1st. IT SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED. Period, full stop. We have to stop giving this guy more due process than any defendant in history, while he bashes the courts. It's disgusting.

 

[Damocles]

Nobody will ever know why the Supreme Court slow walked this decision, but it is within their authority and mandate.

We must trust the system.

It is my best guess that they will decide against this blanket immunity and rule on a qualified immunity, it would have to be directly relatable to the job for such immunity to apply. But hey, sometimes the SCOTUS surprises us. Though I seriously doubt that they'll give blanket immunity to Presidents.

 

[Lionfish]

We are all fucked...INCLUDING YOU DELUDED TRUMP ASSKISSERS...for the reasons I suggested. Joe Biden won the last election fair and square...just as Trump won the 2016 election fair and square.

You people have now been ordered to accept that any election that does not go your way...was not fair and square.

Okay...now continue with your delusions.

frankie, That Depends on your point of view

 

[Lionfish]

Anyone who thinks the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Trump in this matter is ignorant or a fake lawyer sitting behind the receptionist desk in Florida.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

It is my best guess that they will decide against this blanket immunity and rule on a qualified immunity, it would have to be directly relatable to the job for such immunity to apply. But hey, sometimes the SCOTUS surprises us. Though I seriously doubt that they'll give blanket immunity to Presidents.

Are they being asked to rule only on immunity for a specific incident -- the events of J6 and #TRE45ON's part in them -- or on *all* the illegal incidents since the 2020 election that attempted to overturn it? Whether it's the narrow event or all of them, will they be deciding whether Trump's actions were part of his official POTUS duties? Try as I might, I just cannot see how presenting slates of fake electors, threatening a secretary of state to "find more votes," and directing others to break the law are part of a president's official duties. Can you?

 

[Jarod]

I can't think of that many scenarios that are excusable. The Supreme Court is taking up a case to decide whether we now have a King. Huh? If I was a betting man, I'd bet this decision was 5-4. Which again shows how much damage Mitch McConnell has done to the courts. The ONLY reason I can see for them taking up the case now after they had decided not to hear it is the fact that the argument is being pursued in another district. Either way, it's pretty obvious that this will be Judge Cannons excuse for pushing the trial date back by months when the hearing happens today.

That said, if this decision is fast tracked and the case can be set for trial, I don't give a fuck if the trial starts on October 1st. IT SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED. Period, full stop. We have to stop giving this guy more due process than any defendant in history, while he bashes the courts. It's disgusting.

The final decision will be 7-2 or 7-1, they are not that bold... but if they can delay and get away with it, 4 of them certainly will.

 

[Jarod]

It is my best guess that they will decide against this blanket immunity and rule on a qualified immunity, it would have to be directly relatable to the job for such immunity to apply. But hey, sometimes the SCOTUS surprises us. Though I seriously doubt that they'll give blanket immunity to Presidents.

I agree, and they will build in another appeal, but telling the Trial Judge to decide what Trump is immune for and what he is not immune for. When she decides, there will be another 4 month delay.

 

[Damocles]

Are they being asked to rule only on immunity for a specific incident -- the events of J6 and #TRE45ON's part in them -- or on *all* the illegal incidents since the 2020 election that attempted to overturn it? Whether it's the narrow event or all of them, will they be deciding whether Trump's actions were part of his official POTUS duties? Try as I might, I just cannot see how presenting slates of fake electors, threatening a secretary of state to "find more votes," and directing others to break the law are part of a president's official duties. Can you?

The claim is a blanket immunity that seems way too far reaching IMHO. The argument seems to be: There is a path to go to when a President has overreached and that path was taken. So, the claim is that if we think a President has overreached we can impeach, if that fails then they claim there is an immunity that applies once they are outside office, if they are convicted they can certainly be tried for whatever crime it is, but if they are not convicted in the Senate they are claiming an immunity for the activity... If we didn't impeach then once they leave office it is "too late". We traveled the impeachment path for some of this, we haven't for other parts... I just have a hard time believing that they will hand "blanket immunity" to a President to commit crimes that have nothing to do with the execution of the job so long as he isn't impeached. I'm interested to hear the arguments so we can know more.