Octopus Overlords

waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:55 pm I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:55 pm I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

Kurth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:33 am

waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:55 pm I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

Scraper wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:21 am

Kurth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:33 am

waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:55 pm I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

Kurth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:33 am

waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:55 pm I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

Kurth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:46 pm

Scraper wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:21 am

Kurth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:33 am

waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:55 pm I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

I'm also really worried about that dipshit, Alito.

Dogstar wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:03 pm

Kurth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:33 am

waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:55 pm I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right as well. Or at least I hope that you are. Roberts really has a sense of the Court's legacy/reputation, but he's also battling a ultra conservative section of the Court that would minimize his role as Chief Justice if they could. I think (but I may be misremembering) there were articles around the overturning Roe decision about how either Alito or Thomas was the "shadow" Chief Justice and that Roberts had lost the ability to control that part of the court. I suspect that there's a lot of horse trading behind the scenes. A 9-0 ruling against immunity helps Roberts and the Court. I only wish it might come quicker.

Montag wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:48 pm Trump has been accused of insurrection, but has not been convicted. We can accuse people easily and if that is the threshold to keep people from being on the ballot, you got problems. I want Trump out and I want to see his clothes match his orange face, but I want presumed innocence and due process.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:30 pm

Kurth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:46 pm

Scraper wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:21 am

Kurth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:33 am

waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:55 pm I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

I'm also really worried about that dipshit, Alito.

Yeah I wouldn't be shocked if the decision is 8-1 or 7-2. Honestly either of those isn't the end of the world. Setting aside for the moment the small but consequential chance of a ruling in Trump's favor, it only gets embarrassing for the court if it's 5-4 or maybe 6-3.

Amy Coney Barrett wrote: “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

Alefroth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:03 pm

Amy Coney Barrett wrote: “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

Zaxxon wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:58 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:30 pm

Kurth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:46 pm

Scraper wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:21 am

Kurth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:33 am

waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:55 pm I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

I'm also really worried about that dipshit, Alito.

Yeah I wouldn't be shocked if the decision is 8-1 or 7-2. Honestly either of those isn't the end of the world. Setting aside for the moment the small but consequential chance of a ruling in Trump's favor, it only gets embarrassing for the court if it's 5-4 or maybe 6-3.

I don't know; having any non-zero number of justices on the highest court voting to crown a king is a pretty embarrassing number.

Scraper wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:21 am

Kurth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:33 am

waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:55 pm I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

LordMortis wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:23 pm

Alefroth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:03 pm

Amy Coney Barrett wrote: “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

Just like when they shot holes through RvW?

waitingtoconnect wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:08 pm

Scraper wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:21 am

Kurth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:33 am

waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:55 pm I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

If they believed that then I have a bridge to sell them. My prediction is for a 5-4 win for immunity.

waitingtoconnect wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:08 pm

Scraper wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:21 am

Kurth wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:33 am

waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:55 pm I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

If they believed that then I have a bridge to sell them. My prediction is for a 5-4 win for immunity.

waitingtoconnect wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 4:21 pm Be interesting to see if Biden could get a nomination through republicans being idiots.

And then if someone like manchin lets Biden have a pick without a new coal mine in West Virginia or someone like Sanders without a Gaza ceasefire.

Alefroth wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 5:44 pm At this point I don't really think 7-2 is any worse than 6-3.

El Guapo wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 12:59 pm We're going to play this game again with Sotomayor's health.

If she retires between now and January, she would be replaced by a much younger Democratic appointee.

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 7:51 pm

El Guapo wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 12:59 pm We're going to play this game again with Sotomayor's health.

From the article:

If she retires between now and January, she would be replaced by a much younger Democratic appointee.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what would happen.

If there is to be a change to the supreme court in 2024, Biden and the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, have only a few months left to make it happen. And yet they don’t seem too bothered about Sotomayor’s age or health. Last week, the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, called it “a personal decision for her to make”.

A personal decision? The prospect of a 7-2 conservative supreme court, with a far-right Federalist Soceity apparatchik having taken “liberal queen” Sotomayor’s seat on the bench, should fill us all with dread.

Kraken wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:56 pm Sure it's personal, but there's a right decision and a wrong one if she holds liberal values, especially in light of RBG's experience. The fear, as I understand it, is that she might be blinded by the belief that SCOTUS is nonpartisan and nonpolitical. One hopes she doesn't just like judging so much that liberals can go pound sand.

She needs to fall on her sword for the good of the republic, but apparently she doesn't see it that way.

Kurth wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:08 am

Kraken wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:56 pm Sure it's personal, but there's a right decision and a wrong one if she holds liberal values, especially in light of RBG's experience. The fear, as I understand it, is that she might be blinded by the belief that SCOTUS is nonpartisan and nonpolitical. One hopes she doesn't just like judging so much that liberals can go pound sand.

She needs to fall on her sword for the good of the republic, but apparently she doesn't see it that way.

I also wish she'd retire rather than risk another Trump appointment, but I don't think it's so simple. For her to do so because "she holds liberal values" and wants to prevent a further slide to the right flies in the face of the cherished legal myth that the federal judiciary is apolitical. If she times her retirement for partisan reasons, she's basically blowing up that myth and admitting the politicization of the court.

I know we all look at what's been going on and think: How could anyone not think the court is a partisan beast at this point? But I'm telling you that there are a lot of judges and quite a few lawyers out there who cling to the notion that SCOTUS is - or should be - above the political fray. Giving up on that is hard to do.

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:29 am So we’re all supposed to pretend so that the fragile lawyers and judges that influence our daily lives don’t have their worldview shattered?

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:29 am So we’re all supposed to pretend so that the fragile lawyers and judges that influence our daily lives don’t have their worldview shattered?

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2024 3:03 pm It's insane that this is at stake...again. "For the sake of all of us, Sonia Sotomayor needs to retire from the US supreme court" -

If there is to be a change to the supreme court in 2024, Biden and the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, have only a few months left to make it happen. And yet they don’t seem too bothered about Sotomayor’s age or health. Last week, the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, called it “a personal decision for her to make”.

A personal decision? The prospect of a 7-2 conservative supreme court, with a far-right Federalist Soceity apparatchik having taken “liberal queen” Sotomayor’s seat on the bench, should fill us all with dread.

Unagi wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:18 pm Welcome Back!!!