US appeals court could reconsider ruling in Trump’s favor on Portland troop deployment

Diogenes said:
Then you don't adhere to your own ideal scientific principle?
Click to expand...
In a historic decision, a divided Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office, and that there is at least a presumption that they have immunity for their official acts more broadly.

www.scotusblog.com

Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution

This article was updated on July 1 at 3:32 p.m. In a historic decision, a divided Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions […]
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
 

Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have broad immunity​


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, extending the delay in the Washington criminal case against Donald Trump on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss and all but ending prospects the former president could be tried before the November election.

www.ap.org

Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have broad immunity, dimming chance of a pre-election Trump trial | The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, extending the delay in
www.ap.org www.ap.org
 
Hume said:
In a historic decision, a divided Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office, and that there is at least a presumption that they have immunity for their official acts more broadly.
Click to expand...

How does that validate what what you claimed earlier?

Hume said:
And we know the Supreme Court is corrupt and does what Trump tells them to do.
Click to expand...
 
Hume said:

Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have broad immunity​


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, extending the delay in the Washington criminal case against Donald Trump on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss and all but ending prospects the former president could be tried before the November election.
Click to expand...

Your claim:

Hume said:
And we know the Supreme Court is corrupt and does what Trump tells them to do.
Click to expand...
 
Hume said:
And I told you that your laziness is your problem.
Click to expand...


The truth isn't determined by what you post.

Google says you're wrong, BTW.

is it an empirical fact that the the supreme court is corrupt and does what trump tells them to do?











It is not an established empirical fact that the Supreme Court is corrupt or does what Donald Trump tells them to do
. However, the court's legitimacy has been widely debated in recent years, with critics raising concerns about its political motivations and ethics.

Arguments regarding the Supreme Court's politicization and ethics
  • Ideological shifts: Critics argue that the court has become more politically polarized due to the appointment process. Three of the current six conservative justices were appointed by Donald Trump. In its 2023-2024 term, the court issued rulings that aligned with conservative positions on abortion, gun control, and administrative powers.
  • Political motivations: Some observers claim the court is no longer perceived as an impartial legal body but rather as a political one, which could lead to a decline in public trust. A 2022 poll showed that less than half of Americans trust the court to act in the best interest of the public, with a significant partisan divide.
  • Ethical concerns: Recent reports have revealed ethical lapses by some justices, including undisclosed gifts and luxury trips from political donors. These reports led the court to adopt its first-ever code of conduct in 2023, though it lacks an enforcement mechanism, and critics argue it is insufficient.
  • Trump's judicial appointments: Trump's appointments to the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts have cemented a conservative majority that could last for decades. This has led to the overturning of established precedents, such as Roe v. Wade in 2022, and has prompted accusations that the court is advancing a specific political agenda.


Arguments regarding Trump's influence and actions
  • Trump's rhetoric: Since 2016, Trump has repeatedly attacked judges who have ruled against him, suggesting they are biased or part of a "rigged" system. Legal scholars warn this rhetoric undermines judicial independence and the rule of law by implying that the judiciary is an obstacle to the "will of the people".
  • Rulings in Trump's favor: The court has issued several rulings that have benefited Trump. In 2024, the court ruled that a president has broad (though not absolute) immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed in office, which Trump called a "big win". In 2025, the court issued rulings that advanced Trump's policy agenda by limiting federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders.
  • Rulings against Trump: The court has also issued rulings against Trump. In 2024, the court dismissed a case regarding his eligibility to run for office and ruled against his claim of absolute immunity from prosecution. In 2025, the court ruled against the Trump administration's attempt to deport Venezuelan immigrants without proper legal procedure.


The ongoing debate and the public perception
The question of the Supreme Court's integrity and political leanings remains a contentious and polarizing topic.
  • Critics view the court's actions and the ethical concerns as evidence that it has become a partisan body, especially given the influx of Trump-appointed justices.
  • Others point to instances where the court has ruled against Trump and argue that it still operates based on legal principles rather than political fealty.
  • Ongoing legal challenges, particularly those involving Trump, continue to place the Supreme Court in the center of public and political scrutiny
 
Diogenes said:
The truth isn't determined by what you post.

Google says you're wrong, BTW.

is it an empirical fact that the the supreme court is corrupt and does what trump tells them to do?











It is not an established empirical fact that the Supreme Court is corrupt or does what Donald Trump tells them to do
. However, the court's legitimacy has been widely debated in recent years, with critics raising concerns about its political motivations and ethics.

Arguments regarding the Supreme Court's politicization and ethics
  • Ideological shifts: Critics argue that the court has become more politically polarized due to the appointment process. Three of the current six conservative justices were appointed by Donald Trump. In its 2023-2024 term, the court issued rulings that aligned with conservative positions on abortion, gun control, and administrative powers.
  • Political motivations: Some observers claim the court is no longer perceived as an impartial legal body but rather as a political one, which could lead to a decline in public trust. A 2022 poll showed that less than half of Americans trust the court to act in the best interest of the public, with a significant partisan divide.
  • Ethical concerns: Recent reports have revealed ethical lapses by some justices, including undisclosed gifts and luxury trips from political donors. These reports led the court to adopt its first-ever code of conduct in 2023, though it lacks an enforcement mechanism, and critics argue it is insufficient.
  • Trump's judicial appointments: Trump's appointments to the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts have cemented a conservative majority that could last for decades. This has led to the overturning of established precedents, such as Roe v. Wade in 2022, and has prompted accusations that the court is advancing a specific political agenda.


Arguments regarding Trump's influence and actions
  • Trump's rhetoric: Since 2016, Trump has repeatedly attacked judges who have ruled against him, suggesting they are biased or part of a "rigged" system. Legal scholars warn this rhetoric undermines judicial independence and the rule of law by implying that the judiciary is an obstacle to the "will of the people".
  • Rulings in Trump's favor: The court has issued several rulings that have benefited Trump. In 2024, the court ruled that a president has broad (though not absolute) immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed in office, which Trump called a "big win". In 2025, the court issued rulings that advanced Trump's policy agenda by limiting federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders.
  • Rulings against Trump: The court has also issued rulings against Trump. In 2024, the court dismissed a case regarding his eligibility to run for office and ruled against his claim of absolute immunity from prosecution. In 2025, the court ruled against the Trump administration's attempt to deport Venezuelan immigrants without proper legal procedure.


The ongoing debate and the public perception
The question of the Supreme Court's integrity and political leanings remains a contentious and polarizing topic.
  • Critics view the court's actions and the ethical concerns as evidence that it has become a partisan body, especially given the influx of Trump-appointed justices.
  • Others point to instances where the court has ruled against Trump and argue that it still operates based on legal principles rather than political fealty.
  • Ongoing legal challenges, particularly those involving Trump, continue to place the Supreme Court in the center of public and political scrutiny
Click to expand...
No citation of an actual Supreme Court decision. I cited one.
 
Is it an empirical fact that the the Supreme Court is corrupt and does what Trump tells them to do?

No, it is not an empirical fact that the Supreme Court is corrupt and does what Donald Trump tells it to do. Empirical facts require verifiable, objective evidence—such as documented communications, financial trails, or consistent patterns of direct causation—that can be systematically observed and tested. While there are substantial concerns about the Court's ethical lapses, partisan leanings, and rulings that have benefited Trump, these fall short of proving institutional corruption or obedience to his personal commands.

@Grok
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top