Alyssa Farah Griffin @Alyssafarah wrote:
I was in the Oval Office with Trump when he said a WH staffer he believed leaked an embarrassing story about him should be executed.
We may want to take this line of argument from Trump’s attorney extremely seriously.
Abby D. Phillip @abbydphillip wrote:
For the record, Trump's attorney John Sauer argues before the Supreme Court that depending on the circumstances, assassinating a political rival could be considered an official act.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
We already have a branch of government that makes the laws. It's called the legislature. We elect them. If SCOTUS wants to get into the business of making laws, perhaps we should get to directly elect them as well. https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1783610736511525148
Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ @tribelaw wrote:
Today’s SCOTUS argument was more like a hearing in Congress to design an immunity law for future presidents, with Justice Kavanaugh saying “We’re not taking about the present case” and Justice Gorsuch saying “We’re writing rules for the ages” and Justice Alito joining in (cont’d)
Only Justice Jackson reminded her colleagues that deciding this case was the Court’s task and that it might not be cool to use it as a vehicle for “answering in advance all these abstract questions”!
So much for the idea of each branch staying in its constitutional lane!
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
Why do the justices spend so much time asking about hypothetical future cases and how the law applies to them instead of focusing on the specific case before them?
DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 8:48 pm
Why do the justices spend so much time asking about hypothetical future cases and how the law applies to them instead of focusing on the specific case before them?
Shirley you aren't suggesting a majority of the current SCOTUS are just hypocritical hacks lacking an actual philosophical compass.
DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 8:48 pm
Why do the justices spend so much time asking about hypothetical future cases and how the law applies to them instead of focusing on the specific case before them?
Shirley you aren't suggesting a majority of the current SCOTUS are just hypocritical hacks lacking an actual philosophical compass.
DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 8:48 pm
Why do the justices spend so much time asking about hypothetical future cases and how the law applies to them instead of focusing on the specific case before them?
They usually don't. I didn't listen to every single word, but I heard probably 80% or more. My immediate reaction is they are looking for excuses to push it back down to the lower court so the lower court can decide smaller issues then they can take it up again, oh, but wait, it's too late to do it this session, so this will be pushed way out into the future. Trump will be dead in his grave before they ever decide on anything having to do with immunity. They can't outright just say "Donald Trump is completely immune from all his criminal activity" but then put restrictions on Joe Biden and any Democratic president. But, they can help Trump by refusing to decide anything on the current case and push questions back down to the lower court. It was pretty obvious that is what they intend to do. I'm not even a lawyer and I was able to pick up on that within about 20 minutes of the start of questioning Dreeben.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 8:48 pm
Why do the justices spend so much time asking about hypothetical future cases and how the law applies to them instead of focusing on the specific case before them?
They usually don't. I didn't listen to every single word, but I heard probably 80% or more. My immediate reaction is they are looking for excuses to push it back down to the lower court so the lower court can decide smaller issues then they can take it up again, oh, but wait, it's too late to do it this session, so this will be pushed way out into the future. Trump will be dead in his grave before they ever decide on anything having to do with immunity. They can't outright just say "Donald Trump is completely immune from all his criminal activity" but then put restrictions on Joe Biden and any Democratic president. But, they can help Trump by refusing to decide anything on the current case and push questions back down to the lower court. It was pretty obvious that is what they intend to do. I'm not even a lawyer and I was able to pick up on that within about 20 minutes of the start of questioning Dreeben.
I noticed this with the J6 obstruction of an official proceeding case, too. There’s a specific case in front of them. Who cares about precedent? Every single case is different and happens in a vacuum.
