Ɓut the checks were personal checks or corporate checks, not drawn on the US Treasury. So undeniably not related to government administration in anyway.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:41 amThe reimbursement of Cohen happened while he was President. Hope Hicks testified. There were some tweets that were introduced from his period as President, IIRC. The verdict is in danger.
SCOTUS
- keith
- Posts: 4187
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
- Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
- Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
- Verified: ✅lunatic
SCOTUS
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Would scarcely get your feet wet
- raison de arizona
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
- Location: Nothing, Arizona
- Occupation: bit twiddler
- Verified: ✔️ he/him/his
SCOTUS
Yeah, we'll see. They are basically trying to get all the evidence retroactively thrown out, is my read of this.keith wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:47 pmƁut the checks were personal checks or corporate checks, not drawn on the US Treasury. So undeniably not related to government administration in anyway.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:41 amThe reimbursement of Cohen happened while he was President. Hope Hicks testified. There were some tweets that were introduced from his period as President, IIRC. The verdict is in danger.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... =1&title=1
Sorry that text copy is coming out like crap, but you can read the letter, they claim the SCOTUS ruling disallows the evidence even if the indictment alleges only unofficial conduct.Moreover, as we argued previously, Tru forbid the “{uls ofevidence about such [offical] conduet, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct” [d. at *19. This includes President Trump's “Tweets” and “public ‘address[es).” /d. at *18. For that type of evidence, the Supreme Court remanded to the trial court for evaluationof“whether {his alleg
“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
SCOTUS
Which is why I believe the judge will rule, "Even assuming the defendant is correct, and I consider only the pre-inauguration evidence, the prosecution still proved all counts beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant's motion for a new trial therefore is DENNIED."raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:53 pm Sorry that text copy is coming out like crap, but you can read the letter, they claim the SCOTUS ruling disallows the evidence even if the indictment alleges only unofficial conduct.
That protects the record (and preserves the issue for appeal).
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/boots_orly.png)
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/met_obot.png)
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/reporter.png)
- raison de arizona
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
- Location: Nothing, Arizona
- Occupation: bit twiddler
- Verified: ✔️ he/him/his
SCOTUS
I appreciate your optimism and respect your opinion, but the words "for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary" fill me with dread.bob wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:45 pmWhich is why I believe the judge will rule, "Even assuming the defendant is correct, and I consider only the pre-inauguration evidence, the prosecution still proved all counts beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant's motion for a new trial therefore is DENNIED."raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:53 pm Sorry that text copy is coming out like crap, but you can read the letter, they claim the SCOTUS ruling disallows the evidence even if the indictment alleges only unofficial conduct.
That protects the record (and preserves the issue for appeal).
Judge Merchan wrote:“The Court's decision will be rendered off calendar on September 6, 2024, and the matter is adjourned to September 18, 2024 at 10:00 AM for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary, or other proceedings,”
“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
SCOTUS
Fair, but its omission could would be read as the judge having already ruled against the defendant. I don't think there's a correct choice, but its inclusion (or exclusion) seems reasonable.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:50 pm I appreciate your optimism and respect your opinion, but the words "for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary" fill me with dread.Judge Merchan wrote:“The Court's decision will be rendered off calendar on September 6, 2024, and the matter is adjourned to September 18, 2024 at 10:00 AM for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary, or other proceedings,”
But I also would not be surprised if the court denies the new-trial motion, but also stays imposing a sentence.
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/boots_orly.png)
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/met_obot.png)
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/reporter.png)
- Frater I*I
- Posts: 3454
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:52 am
- Location: City of Dis, Seventh Circle of Hell
- Occupation: Certificated A&P Mechanic
- Verified: ✅Verified Devilish Hyena
- Contact:
SCOTUS
That and five bucks will buy Biden a cup of coffee...
![Bored :bored:](./images/smilies/boredsmiley.gif)
"He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see, He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"
Trent Reznor
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"
Trent Reznor
- pipistrelle
- Posts: 7682
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am
SCOTUS
Yep.
- MN-Skeptic
- Posts: 3730
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
- Location: Twin Cities
SCOTUS
I’m all for Biden putting his policy positions out there even if they go nowhere. He’s taking a stand and that counts.pipistrelle wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 6:46 pmYep.
Tim Walz’ Golden Rule: Mind your own damn business!
- Frater I*I
- Posts: 3454
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:52 am
- Location: City of Dis, Seventh Circle of Hell
- Occupation: Certificated A&P Mechanic
- Verified: ✅Verified Devilish Hyena
- Contact:
SCOTUS
I'm fine with Biden taking a stand, I just do like how WAPO is making this out as BREAKING!!!!!!!, when in reality they know it's going nowhere, best just to print in in tomorrow's edition with no announcement....MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 6:49 pm![]()
I’m all for Biden putting his policy positions out there even if they go nowhere. He’s taking a stand and that counts.
"He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see, He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"
Trent Reznor
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"
Trent Reznor
- pipistrelle
- Posts: 7682
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am
SCOTUS
In a roundtable with three of their right-wingers, one of them says something about Harris could be president soon; Democrats know how frail Biden is.Frater I*I wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 7:28 pmI'm fine with Biden taking a stand, I just do like how WAPO is making this out as BREAKING!!!!!!!, when in reality they know it's going nowhere, best just to print in in tomorrow's edition with no announcement....MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 6:49 pm![]()
I’m all for Biden putting his policy positions out there even if they go nowhere. He’s taking a stand and that counts.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
- Slim Cognito
- Posts: 7182
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
- Location: Too close to trump
- Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
- Verified: ✅
-
- Posts: 747
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2021 2:43 pm
SCOTUS
It's time for the Democrats to run on expanding the court to 13. Flip the Senate seat in FL and carve out a path around the filibuster. They can start to pick up independent votes the more people realize we have 2 wannabe retirees in there doing everything they want to do except step down.
SCOTUS
"Finalizing plans" has been downgraded to "seriously considering."
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
I get that politicians regularly float policies that won't materialize. It is best aspirational or, more realistically, how the sausage is made for retail politicking.
But literally nothing proposed is going to materialize until the House is retaken (and the filibuster is abolished).
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/boots_orly.png)
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/met_obot.png)
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/reporter.png)
- Frater I*I
- Posts: 3454
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:52 am
- Location: City of Dis, Seventh Circle of Hell
- Occupation: Certificated A&P Mechanic
- Verified: ✅Verified Devilish Hyena
- Contact:
SCOTUS
Then the QOP goes to 15 when they regain power....New Turtle wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 8:18 pm It's time for the Democrats to run on expanding the court to 13. Flip the Senate seat in FL and carve out a path around the filibuster. They can start to pick up independent votes the more people realize we have 2 wannabe retirees in there doing everything they want to do except step down.
"He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see, He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"
Trent Reznor
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"
Trent Reznor
- Frater I*I
- Posts: 3454
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:52 am
- Location: City of Dis, Seventh Circle of Hell
- Occupation: Certificated A&P Mechanic
- Verified: ✅Verified Devilish Hyena
- Contact:
SCOTUS
And if that happens the QOP, when they regain power, will eliminate the Civil Rights Act....
That's why Dems haven't axed it....
"He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see, He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"
Trent Reznor
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"
Trent Reznor
- zekeb
- Posts: 975
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:12 pm
- Location: Strawberry Hill
- Occupation: Stable genius. One who tosses horseshit with a pitchfork and never misses the spreader.
- Verified: ✅Of course
SCOTUS
SCOTUS justices should be elected to eight year terms. It's nice to say, but does our Constitution even permit this? It's too bad our founding fathers didn't have a tardis and looked ahead 200 years.
Largo al factotum.
- Foggy
- Dick Tater
- Posts: 10733
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
- Location: Fogbow HQ
- Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
- Verified: Inventor of flag baseball
SCOTUS
No. Term limits for justices will require a constitutional amendment.
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour ...
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour ...
Don't mind me, I just fell out of a coconut tree. ![🥥](//cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@latest/assets/svg/1f965.svg)
![🌴](//cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@latest/assets/svg/1f334.svg)
- pipistrelle
- Posts: 7682
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am
SCOTUS
Accepting bribes is good for somebody, you gotta admit. And dismissing national security cases without a pretense of justification.
SCOTUS
The House can always send articles of impeachmen.....pipistrelle wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 8:21 am
Accepting bribes is good for somebody, you gotta admit. And dismissing national security cases without a pretense of justification.
Nevermind.
Edit: Type-O.
![Bag :bag:](./images/smilies/bag.gif)
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/boots_orly.png)
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/met_obot.png)
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/reporter.png)
- pipistrelle
- Posts: 7682
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am
SCOTUS
Yep. Farcical.bob wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 11:55 amThe House can always sent articles of impeachmen.....pipistrelle wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 8:21 am
Accepting bribes is good for somebody, you gotta admit. And dismissing national security cases without a pretense of justification.
Nevermind.
- Ben-Prime
- Posts: 3030
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
- Location: Worldwide Availability
- Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
- Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide
SCOTUS
I think the 13 count would be an easier lift than term limits.New Turtle wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 8:18 pm It's time for the Democrats to run on expanding the court to 13. Flip the Senate seat in FL and carve out a path around the filibuster. They can start to pick up independent votes the more people realize we have 2 wannabe retirees in there doing everything they want to do except step down.
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.
- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.
- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
- Ben-Prime
- Posts: 3030
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
- Location: Worldwide Availability
- Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
- Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide
SCOTUS
Since the Congress can otherwise make rules for the courts, though, can they do something like "An Associate or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who has served for more than X years may not give public argument or vote on cases at controversy admitted before the Supreme Court, though they may still perform other functions of members of that court such as oversight of circuit courts, vote on certiorari decisions before the court to hear cases, and be present at arguments before the court."? Then they are not removing the justices from their positions, and the justices get full pay and benefits, but they are limited in certain roles and duties Congress may have the power to prescribe or proscribe?
I'm spitballing here, as everyone knows IANAL. So I'm wondering if there's a way to make the FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT of term limits that would work, is what I'm asking, even if my specific wording above wouldn't pass muster.
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.
- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.
- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
SCOTUS
Frater I*I wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 10:27 pmThen the QOP goes to 15 when they regain power....New Turtle wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 8:18 pm It's time for the Democrats to run on expanding the court to 13. Flip the Senate seat in FL and carve out a path around the filibuster. They can start to pick up independent votes the more people realize we have 2 wannabe retirees in there doing everything they want to do except step down.
![Yeah That :yeahthat:](./images/smilies/yeahthat.gif)
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/secr.png)
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/meetup.gif)
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/met_obot.png)
SCOTUS
That idea essentially has been floated before. The proposal is, after 18 years of service, every justice is "promoted" to senior justice, and a new associate comes onto the bench. Senior justices would do very little (they still would hear original jurisdiction cases, which are rare).Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 2:16 pm Since the Congress can otherwise make rules for the courts, though, can they do something like "An Associate or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who has served for more than X years may not give public argument or vote on cases at controversy admitted before the Supreme Court, though they may still perform other functions of members of that court such as oversight of circuit courts, vote on certiorari decisions before the court to hear cases, and be present at arguments before the court."? Then they are not removing the justices from their positions, and the justices get full pay and benefits, but they are limited in certain roles and duties Congress may have the power to prescribe or proscribe?
I'm spitballing here, as everyone knows IANAL. So I'm wondering if there's a way to make the FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT of term limits that would work, is what I'm asking, even if my specific wording above wouldn't pass muster.
It is walking a fine line on constitutionality. Congress can establish some contours for SCOTUS' appellate jurisdiction, so limiting appellate jurisdiction to only justices with less than 18 years tenure just might skirt the eligibility requirements in Article III. But probably not: I don't see this SCOTUS permitting a backdoor amendment to Article III.
And, of course, it is DOA in this Congress.
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/boots_orly.png)
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/met_obot.png)
![Image](https://thefogbow.com/forum/images/awards/reporter.png)