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

archives said:
It is bullshit, when Smith asked them two months ago to take it up they responded they wanted to see what the lesser Court would decide, and now that they quickly delivered an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court suddenly says they want to look at it, two months from now, and with this Court, probably issue a verdict in late June

At the least, to push the trial so close to the election that Trump well starting filling suits to delay the trial tying it up further with legalities, and the worse, for them to issue such a muddled opinion that Trump’s army of attorneys will open up new avenues of appeal
Click to expand...

are you against rule of law?

are you trying to incite violence?

are you insurrecting right now?
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's almost as though they are claiming double jeopardy if he escaped conviction in the Senate and now is indicted for the same crimes.

We are living in interesting times.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
It's almost as though they are claiming double jeopardy if he escaped conviction in the Senate and now is indicted for the same crimes.

We are living in interesting times.
Click to expand...

Not really double jeopardy, as that does not apply to convictions in the Senate. It seems more like the Constitution didn't say that double jeopardy didn't apply when they were not convicted... I'm not quite sure. But they are claiming an immunity for the action because there is a path for Presidents that otherwise does not exist for the rest of us. It seems to ignore that some crimes could be committed on the way out that they simply don't have time to impeach for...

Basically, if you are lame duck enough you can do some truly atrocious things and since you weren't impeached our path to make you pay has now expired.

I do not believe that the SCOTUS will see it this way, it just seems to be the path they are taking in their arguments.
 
Jarod said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think we have to "trust" them when there is such a clear distinction on what they choose to move 'fast' on and what they choose to delay.

Time and again the SC, when it has a conservative majority, proves it can move at lightening speed when the issue could impact a GOP POTUS or candidate negatively but they show time is not a concern, when that extra time can allow a conservative POTUS or candidate to avoid the law at crucial times.

One need look no further than how incredibly fast when Trump called out 'hey SC please review Colorado kicking me off the ballot so i am not negatively impacted and can get back on'. Within 3 days of Trump asking, they told him 'YES'. And then set a extremely quick hearing speed and have already heard that case.

Compare that to Jack Smith asking the SCOTUS to take this case in Dec, the SCOTUS turning it down, and then finally accepting it 3 months later, while setting the date to hear months out.


Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course they will define the immunity extent in this case.

That though may give Trump defacto immunity, as it may leave no time to try it or the SC might push the case back to the District court saying 'now you must re-consider Trumps immunity appeal using the new guidelines', forcing another trial at the State court level.
 
QP! said:
I don't think we have to "trust" them when there is such a clear distinction on what they choose to move 'fast' on and what they choose to delay.

Time and again the SC, when it has a conservative majority, proves it can move at lightening speed when the issue could impact a GOP POTUS or candidate negatively but they show time is not a concern, when that extra time can allow a conservative POTUS or candidate to avoid the law at crucial times.

One need look no further than how incredibly fast when Trump called out 'hey SC please review Colorado kicking me off the ballot so i am not negatively impacted and can get back on'. Within 3 days of Trump asking, they told him 'YES'. And then set a extremely quick hearing speed and have already heard that case.

Compare that to Jack Smith asking the SCOTUS to take this case in Dec, the SCOTUS turning it down, and then finally accepting it 3 months later, while setting the date to hear months out.




Of course they will define the immunity extent in this case.

That though may give Trump defacto immunity, as it may leave no time to try it or the SC might push the case back to the District court saying 'now you must re-consider Trumps immunity appeal using the new guidelines', forcing another trial at the State court level.
Click to expand...

These are the courts that have served us for centuries, usually to the benefit of the left. At some point in the future there will doubtless be another Democrat facing what you will then call "politicized lawfare", and you would want to have this. I get that you would rather Trump not get his day before the SCOTUS, and I understand that you believe they are "slow walking" everything (though you know that stuff you bring to the SCOTUS is rarely heard just a month later, this is what the SCOTUS would call "ludicrous speed" if they were in a Mel Brooks movie), you will one day be glad for the pace the courts work, though I fear you will not reflect on the day you thought that such a path should be unavailable to folks you feel are your opponents.
 
Damocles said:
These are the courts that have served us for centuries, usually to the benefit of the left. At some point in the future there will doubtless be another Democrat facing what you will then call "politicized lawfare", and you would want to have this. I get that you would rather Trump not get his day before the SCOTUS, and I understand that you believe they are "slow walking" everything (though you know that stuff you bring to the SCOTUS is rarely heard just a month later, this is what the SCOTUS would call "ludicrous speed" if they were in a Mel Brooks movie), you will one day be glad for the pace the courts work, though I fear you will not reflect on the day you thought that such a path should be unavailable to folks you feel are your opponents.
Click to expand...

They sure moved faster on a briefing schedule for deciding if Trump could be on the ballot. They moved faster in Bush v. Gore, they moved faster in the Nixon case, they moved faster in many cases that we of critical importance.
 
QP! said:
I don't think we have to "trust" them when there is such a clear distinction on what they choose to move 'fast' on and what they choose to delay.

Time and again the SC, when it has a conservative majority, proves it can move at lightening speed when the issue could impact a GOP POTUS or candidate negatively but they show time is not a concern, when that extra time can allow a conservative POTUS or candidate to avoid the law at crucial times.

One need look no further than how incredibly fast when Trump called out 'hey SC please review Colorado kicking me off the ballot so i am not negatively impacted and can get back on'. Within 3 days of Trump asking, they told him 'YES'. And then set a extremely quick hearing speed and have already heard that case.

Compare that to Jack Smith asking the SCOTUS to take this case in Dec, the SCOTUS turning it down, and then finally accepting it 3 months later, while setting the date to hear months out.




Of course they will define the immunity extent in this case.

That though may give Trump defacto immunity, as it may leave no time to try it or the SC might push the case back to the District court saying 'now you must re-consider Trumps immunity appeal using the new guidelines', forcing another trial at the State court level.
Click to expand...

What is our other option?
 
Jarod said:
They sure moved faster on a briefing schedule for deciding if Trump could be on the ballot. They moved faster in Bush v. Gore, they moved faster in the Nixon case, they moved faster in many cases that we of critical importance.
Click to expand...

There was more immediate need for those decisions.
 
zymurgy said:
January 6th Committee and its politically-timed "report" was designed to slow roll the next step. this was always going to happen.

had they not did everything they could to maximize damage in the 2022 election, SCOTUS would of already been done with the ruling here

sick of you gas lighting shit stains pretending you aren't just as political with your decisions and timing of things
Click to expand...

The ruling was not even a consideration in 2022
 
QP! said:
Because the SC, especially this SC loves it power, and if you put a POTUS above the law, that means the SC gives all its power away to the POTUS.

It would mean a future POTUS could simply have Justices killed to create vacancies, as Trump argued was within his powers to do.
WHich i think i said the same or similar with this...
Click to expand...

Certainly does, however, they know who is responsible for their power, who put them their and why, they also know if they cross him he would just add enough to the Court to make them a non entity
 
Lionfish said:
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.
Click to expand...

No you won’t, if they actually heard the case and dismissed it quickly, unlikely, you’d be swallowing all the propaganda your media sources and social media pedal about Trump being victimized, the Court surrendering to the weight of an unfair media, etc, at least be honest
 
Jarod said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really, I think most know, the most important decision they will have this term, one with a major impact on the upcoming election, and you can’t hypothesize why they slow walked it? They didn’t slow walk the Colorado case, certainly not Gore/Bush, and really didn’t offer any reason for taking up this case which is usually customary for the Court
 
archives said:
No you won’t, if they actually heard the case and dismissed it quickly, unlikely, you’d be swallowing all the propaganda your media sources and social media pedal about Trump being victimized, the Court surrendering to the weight of an unfair media, etc, at least be honest
Click to expand...

Poor anchovies, Trump will lose this case.
 
Lionfish said:
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.
Click to expand...

They might not rule directly against him, but I’d wager they will issue a muddle opinion as they have in gun cases which will allow Trump the opportunity to file additional appeals on further grounds
 
Jarod said:
My point is that it is possible if they wanted to do so. I think having this issue decided before the vote is pretty important.

There is precedent.
Click to expand...
Yes if it was an immediate need for sitting President but not so much need for a former president. So there is no need to expedite the trial.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which will then lead to proving Trump thought he was acting “directly relating to the job,” that he really believed the election was bogus and he was aiding America by halting the erroneous transfer of power, the exact decision Trump wants, which could also pretty much make him immune from any prosecution even having the SS kill a political opponent
 
Lionfish said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you believe a president is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution?
 
Damocles said:
These are the courts that have served us for centuries, usually to the benefit of the left. At some point in the future there will doubtless be another Democrat facing what you will then call "politicized lawfare", and you would want to have this. I get that you would rather Trump not get his day before the SCOTUS, and I understand that you believe they are "slow walking" everything (though you know that stuff you bring to the SCOTUS is rarely heard just a month later, this is what the SCOTUS would call "ludicrous speed" if they were in a Mel Brooks movie), you will one day be glad for the pace the courts work, though I fear you will not reflect on the day you thought that such a path should be unavailable to folks you feel are your opponents.
Click to expand...

No, “QP” is correct, the Court is slow walking this case, they had Smith’s request last December, and the Appeals Court came back with a unanimous decision, there is no reason other than to accommodate Trump, that Smith will probably now have to wait six months for a decision
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top