SCOTUS Watch

[hepcat]

It's also the same courts that refused Texas' attempts to invalidate the election results in 4 states back in 2020 in favor of Trump. They're also the same SCOTUS that voted in favor of the Biden's administration desire to remove misinformation on social media, something that the right wing extremists hate the very thought of.

Is this a tarnished, corrupt SCOTUS? Yeah, I agree, it is. They're for sale to the highest bidder at times. I suspect they have been for a lot longer than we realize. But I also don't believe they're outright trying to turn the country into a dictatorship. They're just voting right wing more often than I'm comfortable with. But they also vote for things the left wing wants too, I must remind you.

I still believe that the scenario in which Trump, with the blessings of the SCOTUS and everyone else, will suddenly start declaring martial law in blue states, assassinating political rivals or trying to saw off Florida so that it floats away are still "going to 11".

…although I wonder how much it would cost to get that Florida scenario approved?

Not even the current Supreme Court.

Assassinating political rivals is not mentioned as a core duty in the constitution, last I checked.

Committing fraud to cover up hush money payment to porn star is also not mentioned as a core duty in the constitution especially when it occurred before Trump was elected but still the supreme court decision delayed Trump sentencing.

Delayed, not approved his actions. It's a byproduct of the ruling. Not a beneficiary...at least not yet. Also, trying to equate a hush money trial with a complete destruction of American rule of law via acts such as a president willfully killing his political rivals without fear of consequence is ridiculous.

[Unagi]

As long as you realize that if it does happen , we will now never see any of the evidence at all and no jury will ever know any of the details. That’s all part of this.

I really don’t share your confidence a corrupt SC that is for sale would do ‘the right thing’. Seems a bit generous.

[raydude]

As long as you realize that if it does happen , we will now never see any of the evidence at all and no jury will ever know any of the details. That’s all part of this.

I really don’t share your confidence a corrupt SC that is for sale would do ‘the right thing’. Seems a bit generous.

Here's the thing: Trump has never been a twirling mustache Snideley Whiplash kind of bad guy. He's like those mob bosses that don't outright say "Please kill this guy", he says things that can be construed to mean it, but also can be defended as just something that was taken the wrong way. So things like outright assassination won't be in his playbook. Other things like asking the DOJ to investgate a news corporation absent of any suspicion - just because they are putting out bad news about him - can be more easily defended as official acts. Especially by this SC.

[LawBeefaroni]

Assassinating political rivals is not mentioned as a core duty in the constitution, last I checked.

There is nothing limiting "official acts" to any list of "core duties" enumerated in the Constitution. "Official acts" are whatever official acts are as is convenient.

[hepcat]

As long as you realize that if it does happen , we will now never see any of the evidence at all and no jury will ever know any of the details. That’s all part of this.

I really don’t share your confidence a corrupt SC that is for sale would do ‘the right thing’. Seems a bit generous.

Perhaps it’s best to say “wouldn’t turn America into a dictatorship”. My entire discussion has been based around that, not that they’re doing the right thing. As with all things, there are degrees. I just don’t believe the degree to which SCOTUS will go is at the level of establishing a dictatorship. But I’ve continually stated I think they’re corrupt.

There is nothing limiting "official acts" to any list of "core duties" enumerated in the Constitution. "Official acts" are whatever official acts are as is convenient.

Official acts would have to have some basis in the constitutional duties of the POTUS, if I read the finding correctly. However, I am not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Unagi]

As long as you realize that if it does happen , we will now never see any of the evidence at all and no jury will ever know any of the details. That’s all part of this.

I really don’t share your confidence a corrupt SC that is for sale would do ‘the right thing’. Seems a bit generous.

Here's the thing: Trump has never been a twirling mustache Snideley Whiplash kind of bad guy. He's like those mob bosses that don't outright say "Please kill this guy", he says things that can be construed to mean it, but also can be defended as just something that was taken the wrong way. So things like outright assassination won't be in his playbook. Other things like asking the DOJ to investgate a news corporation absent of any suspicion - just because they are putting out bad news about him - can be more easily defended as official acts. Especially by this SC.

Your example is also terrifying with regard to what Trump would do with this, and then also - it's probably wise to understand that this SC ruling will apply to any President going forward, mustache quirks included. The decision is very bad even with Trump out of the picture.

[hepcat]

And so we’re back to what I consider a fundamental rule: never elect a person named “Damien” or any variation of such. I’ve seen too many movies and tv shows to fall for THAT one.

[Unagi]

As long as you realize that if it does happen , we will now never see any of the evidence at all and no jury will ever know any of the details. That’s all part of this.

I really don’t share your confidence a corrupt SC that is for sale would do ‘the right thing’. Seems a bit generous.

Perhaps it’s best to say “wouldn’t turn America into a dictatorship”. My entire discussion has been based around that, not that they’re doing the right thing. As with all things, there are degrees. I just don’t believe the degree to which SCOTUS will go is at the level of establishing a dictatorship. But I’ve continually stated I think they’re corrupt.

Honestly, to my ear, that's like saying you feel a drink is poison but you wouldn't go so far as to say it's likely to kill anyone.

If they are corrupt, then why do you feel you understand their boundaries?

The very nature of this ruling creates a backroom where the public will never hear or see any of the details for these cases.

While this didn't turn America into a dictatorship, it was a fork in the road that needed to be taken if we are heading in that direction - and we should seriously be worried about taking that fork in the road.

[Zarathud]

This is a Supreme Court that will look to history to define official acts. And that history is the King of England. That is not good.

[Unagi]

Official acts would have to have some basis in the constitutional duties of the POTUS, if I read the finding correctly.

I don't think you are.

The decision had 3 parts:

1) Core Constitutional Acts: Absolute Immunity (not really needed to be decided by the SC, as they are in the Consitution)
2) Offical Acts: Presumptive Immunity (nearly impossible to overcome)
3) Unofficial Acts: No Immunity, but NO evidence from Official Acts can be considered.

Anything with 'official act' brought into it, will not be exposed to you and me - a federal judge will make the call behind a closed door.

[Kraken]

While this didn't turn America into a dictatorship, it was a fork in the road that needed to be taken if we are heading in that direction - and we should seriously be worried about taking that fork in the road.

The candidate who has a comfortable lead in most polls right now openly stated that he will be a dictator on Day One. This isn't hypothetical.

[GreenGoo]

Yeah, but what's going to happen is that conservative presidents are going to be immune for these "reasons", but liberal presidents are not immune for these "other reasons".

When you have total control over something, the public reasons are just cover to keep the masses from rioting. In the meantime you do what you want, when you want.

As I said, I don't see any reason why a corrupt SCOTUS has to be consistent or play by the same rules for similar cases. Assuming a democrat president is ever elected again, SCOTUS will just change the rules.

[Alefroth]

Not even the current Supreme Court.

Assassinating political rivals is not mentioned as a core duty in the constitution, last I checked.

Committing fraud to cover up hush money payment to porn star is also not mentioned as a core duty in the constitution especially when it occured before Trump was elected but still the supreme court decision delayed Trump sentencing.

So it is not as simple as checking the constitution for "core duty" of the President.

They delayed sentencing because some evidence might now be inadmissible, not because paying hush money might be an official act.

Then maybe all evidence of "the taking out the bad guys orders" are also going to be inadmissible?

Get a new schtick.

[Punisher]

They want a revolution and the subsequent dominance of a puritanical right dictating what's right and wrong based on a text they don't even follow themselves?

Or they just don't care if there's a revolution and the subsequent dominance of a puritanical right dictating what's right and wrong based on a text they don't even follow themselves?

...probably the second.

Do as we say, not as we do.

[Punisher]

Y'all absolutely should read her column if you haven't already.

Reading is hard! Watch her instead

That mentions an AI someone created to show how things can be made an official act. Dies anyone have a link to it?

[Punisher]

My God! Left unchecked, you'll eventually include going 3 miles over the speed limit and temporary littering (the unlawful act of dropping litter on the sidewalk and then picking it up almost immediately and disposing of it in a trash receptacle....but for those 30 seconds it's on the sidewalk, it's pandemonium).

3 miles? I'm gonna go TEN MPH over the limit on flat roads and dial it up to ELEVEN when going downhill!
As for littering I'm only gonna pick up recyclables. 5 cents is 5 cents!
My evil knows no bounds!

[Unagi]

Term Limits Found Unconstitutional

-coming soon-

[pr0ner]

Term Limits Found Unconstitutional

-coming soon-

Would love to know how something in the Constitution will be found in unconstitutional, even by this SCOTUS.

[$iljanus]

Term Limits Found Unconstitutional

-coming soon-

Would love to know how something in the Constitution will be found in unconstitutional, even by this SCOTUS.

Yeah that’s rather far fetched. I’m waiting for some enterprising young Bob Jones graduate lawyer in the Trumpian DOJ to circulate a memo on creative ways to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

[LawBeefaroni]

Term Limits Found Unconstitutional

-coming soon-

Would love to know how something in the Constitution will be found in unconstitutional, even by this SCOTUS.

It's an amendment. Congress can repeal it. Let the great abrogation begin, clear the way for 16 more years!

Far fetched? Not really.

Over the years, several presidents have voiced their antipathy toward the amendment. After leaving office, Harry Truman described the amendment as stupid and one of the worst amendments of the Constitution with the exception of the Prohibition Amendment.[28] A few days before leaving office in January 1989, President Ronald Reagan said he would push for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment because he thought it infringed on people's democratic rights.[29] In a November 2000 interview with Rolling Stone, President Bill Clinton suggested that the 22nd Amendment should be altered to limit presidents to two consecutive terms but then allow non-consecutive terms, because of longer life expectancies.[30]

The first efforts in Congress to repeal the 22nd Amendment were undertaken in 1956, five years after the amendment's ratification. Over the next 50 years, 54 joint resolutions seeking to repeal the two-term presidential election limit were introduced.[1] Between 1997 and 2013, José E. Serrano, Democratic representative for New York, introduced nine resolutions (one per Congress, all unsuccessful) to repeal the amendment.[31] Repeal has also been supported by Representatives Barney Frank and David Dreier and Senators Mitch McConnell[32] and Harry Reid.[33]

[waitingtoconnect]

Yes but why bother with the constitution.

We need to rip it up and reorganise into an empire. Then the emperor of democracy can rule us for a safe and prosperous future. I can’t see how we’d need Supreme Court justices then though…

[pr0ner]

Term Limits Found Unconstitutional

-coming soon-

Would love to know how something in the Constitution will be found in unconstitutional, even by this SCOTUS.

It's an amendment. Congress can repeal it. Let the great abrogation begin, clear the way for 16 more years!

It takes more than just Congress to repeal an amendment.

[El Guapo]

Term Limits Found Unconstitutional

-coming soon-

Would love to know how something in the Constitution will be found in unconstitutional, even by this SCOTUS.

It's an amendment. Congress can repeal it. Let the great abrogation begin, clear the way for 16 more years!

It takes more than just Congress to repeal an amendment.

Indeed. Basically repealing an amendment is an amendment (as with the amendment that repealed prohibition) so it would require ratification by 2/3rds of the states (which isn't happening).

The real danger is not repeal, it's that: (1) SCOTUS, with probably at least one more Trump appointed justice, writes an insane opinion allowing him to run again; or (2) Trump ignores the Constitutional restriction, runs again, and no one stops him from doing so.

[waitingtoconnect]

Just create a new role that sits above the president that has no restrictions. Like CEO of America or chairman of the board.

[Zarathud]

Trump would claim immunity because it’s an “official act” until he’s impeached.

[milo]

Term Limits Found Unconstitutional

-coming soon-

Would love to know how something in the Constitution will be found in unconstitutional, even by this SCOTUS.

They just found the prohibition on bribery of the president to be unconstitutional, and that's part of the constitution.

Bribery is inducement of an official to take some action they would not otherwise have taken. Since bribery is nearly always to induce an official act, and the courts cannot consider the president's motive to perform any official act, there is now effectively no way to convict a president for accepting a bribe.

[waitingtoconnect]

It’s only unconstitutional if a democrat does it. Love Clarence

[LawBeefaroni]

Term Limits Found Unconstitutional

-coming soon-

Would love to know how something in the Constitution will be found in unconstitutional, even by this SCOTUS.

It's an amendment. Congress can repeal it. Let the great abrogation begin, clear the way for 16 more years!

It takes more than just Congress to repeal an amendment.

Indeed. Basically repealing an amendment is an amendment (as with the amendment that repealed prohibition) so it would require ratification by 2/3rds of the states (which isn't happening).

3/4ths of state legislatures is required after 2/3rds of congress.

2/3rds of stares can call a constitutional convention to propose amendments.

Still, do we still really think this will be done by the book?

[Unagi]

Yeah, it will not, not remotely. It would be summarily declared unconstitutional by the SC and they will dare the country to riot about it.

[Carpet_pissr]

Term Limits Found Unconstitutional

-coming soon-

Would love to know how something in the Constitution will be found in unconstitutional, even by this SCOTUS.

Yeah that’s rather far fetched. I’m waiting for some enterprising young Bob Jones graduate lawyer in the Trumpian DOJ to circulate a memo on creative ways to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

Please don't put that idea out there!

[LawBeefaroni]

I look at the official acts immunity busoness as an enabler . Like if a president wants to take out a citizen, it would still be black ops wetworks type stuff. Taking a bribe would still be done in secret. The difference now is that if they got caught, it would only result in bad press rather than impeachment, forced resignation, jail time, etc. That wildly changes rhe risk/reward calculation for a whole host of unsavory acts.

[El Guapo]

I look at the official acts immunity busoness as an enabler . Like if a president wants to take out a citizen, it would still be black ops wetworks type stuff. Taking a bribe would still be done in secret. The difference now is that if they got caught, it would only result in bad press rather than impeachment, forced resignation, jail time, etc. That wildly changes rhe risk/reward calculation for a whole host of unsavory acts.

Also changes the risk / reward calculation for whistleblowers. During a second Trump administration, how many people are going to be willing to step forward to blow the whistle on crimes knowing that they're risking jail time when all that will happen is maybe a day or two of bad PR for Trump?

[waitingtoconnect]

I look at the official acts immunity busoness as an enabler . Like if a president wants to take out a citizen, it would still be black ops wetworks type stuff. Taking a bribe would still be done in secret. The difference now is that if they got caught, it would only result in bad press rather than impeachment, forced resignation, jail time, etc. That wildly changes rhe risk/reward calculation for a whole host of unsavory acts.

What the Supreme Court have done is pass what is effectively an enabling act for trump to eliminate all opposition under the auspices of official acts. Who needs cowards in congress to give the fascists what they want? The Supreme Court has given it to them.

So now a president can just round up anyone who wants to impeach him such that he can’t be impeached.

and if you pay after the decision it’s not a bribe, it’s a “gift”. So they’d arrange the gift up front. Don’t even have to hide it now.

Personally I’m looking forward to the irony of them saying that alcohol is still banned because you can’t go against precedent.

As for El Gs comments on whistle blowers. People HATE whistleblowers. Even if it’s in their interest none likes a snitch. That’s why the trump whistleblowers - no one really cares about them. And while the liberals love having chris Christie and John bolton and Mike pence and Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson on their news channels the so called progressives (if you watch their you tubes) hate anyone who dealt with trump even if they are stepping forward to do the right thing.

It makes being a whistleblower a very lonely place.

[Isgrimnur]

President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No President Is Above the Law

In the face of this crisis of confidence in America’s democratic institutions, President Biden is calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability:

1. No Immunity for Crimes a Former President Committed in Office
...
2. Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices
...
3. Binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court

[Alefroth]

Well, if nothing else, it'll get one side to argue there shouldn't be binding ethics rules for the justices.

[LordMortis]

President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No President Is Above the Law

In the face of this crisis of confidence in America’s democratic institutions, President Biden is calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability:

1. No Immunity for Crimes a Former President Committed in Office
...
2. Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices
...
3. Binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court

While I can't see it going anywhere I still

[El Guapo]

President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No President Is Above the Law

In the face of this crisis of confidence in America’s democratic institutions, President Biden is calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability:

1. No Immunity for Crimes a Former President Committed in Office
...
2. Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices
...
3. Binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court

While I can't see it going anywhere I still

Yeah it's not going anywhere anytime soon, but this or something like it needs to happen eventually, and calling for this is part of building the political pressure for it to happen eventually.

[waitingtoconnect]

It’s the democrats finally doing what the republicans always do to them. It’sa classic political wedge.

They have to resist or their slow moving coup plans are upended but if the don’t they show to the electorate they don’t care about proper process and closing loopholes.

You have the current and prospective Democratic presents saying I shouldn’t be immune to my bad behaviour and neither should the Supreme Court justices and trump saying that’si not right. You can’t spin your way out of that response.

[Smoove_B]

So very unusual:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Wednesday overrode Justice Elena Kagan in a high-profile First Amendment case involving COVID-19 regulations, basketball legend John Stockton, and putative Donald Trump administration cabinet nominee Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Stockton is the lead plaintiff in the fast-paced litigation that aims to avail the free speech rights of physicians who, in the original petition’s words, “speak out against the mainstream Covid narrative.”

The lawsuit was filed in the spring and subsequently shot down at various stages in the federal system. Using a different procedural vehicle allowed the plaintiffs to quickly file an application for an injunction pending appeal with Kagan in late October. The Barack Obama-appointed jurist declined to do so — without a word — in late November.

Now, an admittedly “long shot” effort to convince Thomas to overrule his colleague on the bench has panned out and managed to keep the case alive, for now at least, with the nation’s high court.

I'm sure that it's a COVID-19 case involving RFK Jr. is just a total coincidence.