SCOTUS

User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 18788
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

SCOTUS

#1251

Post by raison de arizona »

This isn't a hypothetical question. It has come up in tfg's white house.
https://x.com/Alyssafarah/status/1783604856856469721
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
Dave from down under
Posts: 4120
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

SCOTUS

#1252

Post by Dave from down under »

Rendition to GITMO for some enhanced interrogation of the SCOTUS justices that believe it is OK for a president to be above the law.
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 18788
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

SCOTUS

#1253

Post by raison de arizona »

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
DrIrvingFinegarten
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:58 pm

SCOTUS

#1254

Post by DrIrvingFinegarten »

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?
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5656
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

SCOTUS

#1255

Post by bob »

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.
Image ImageImage
DrIrvingFinegarten
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:58 pm

SCOTUS

#1256

Post by DrIrvingFinegarten »

bob wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2024 8:54 pm
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.


Don’t know but don’t call me Shirley.
New Turtle
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2021 2:43 pm

SCOTUS

#1257

Post by New Turtle »

If the SCOTUS approval gets much lower, some of these Democrats can run openly on packing the court.
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3932
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

SCOTUS

#1258

Post by RVInit »

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
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 5199
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

SCOTUS

#1259

Post by p0rtia »

My message to Alito regarding his support of heads of states with absolute power: Read a book, Sammy.
DrIrvingFinegarten
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:58 pm

SCOTUS

#1260

Post by DrIrvingFinegarten »

RVInit wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2024 9:27 am
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.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 15049
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

SCOTUS

#1261

Post by RTH10260 »

at this site filed under SWAMP CREATURES
Clarence Thomas Hates the “Hideous Place” That Made Him Rich
The Supreme Court justice claims he can’t stand Washington, but he has the capital city to thank for all of those wealthy friends who have treated him to lavish trips and luxury goods.

Matt Ford
May 14, 2024

Supreme Court justices are not above shaping their own public images. Many of them write books, either biographies about their own lives or general treatises about their view on the law. They often speak to law students and fellow judges in public appearances and (occasionally) grant interviews to news outlets.

But none of them can hold a candle to Justice Clarence Thomas, a man who seems to be enamored with his own mythology—and who deeply resents anything that contradicts it or his self-image. Americans saw another glimpse of it last week when Thomas spoke at an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals conference in Mobile Bay, Alabama.

“My wife and I, the last two or three years, just the nastiness and the lies,” Thomas reportedly told Judge Kathryn Mizelle, a former clerk, at the event. “There’s certainly been a lot of negativity in our lives, my wife and I, over the last few years, but we choose not to focus on it.” While telling an anecdote about a friend in his hometown, he briefly mentioned that the story occurred “before they started attacking my friends; I hope I still have some.”

He also denounced the hostility he said he feels in the nation’s capital. “Especially in Washington, people pride themselves in being awful,” he said. “It’s a hideous place, as far as I’m concerned. Because the rest of the country—it’s one of the reasons we like R.V.-ing. You get to be around regular people who don’t pride themselves in doing harmful things merely because they have the capacity to do it.”

These are Thomas’s fullest public remarks on the ethics scandals that have hounded him over the past year, and they underscore how he views the scandals primarily as a matter of public relations than judicial propriety. Though he loves to cast himself as a martyr, the reality of Thomas’s life and career is that many of his grievances are self-inflicted ones. So when he bemoans the “nastiness” of this “hideous place” called Washington, he should consider his own role in making it that way.



https://newrepublic.com/article/181538/ ... -made-rich
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 5199
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

SCOTUS

#1262

Post by p0rtia »

I have a solution for you, CT.
Screenshot 2024-05-15 at 7.53.06 PM.png
Screenshot 2024-05-15 at 7.53.06 PM.png (506.31 KiB) Viewed 70 times
Resume18
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:08 pm

SCOTUS

#1263

Post by Resume18 »

Clarence and his spouse are sheer garbage who gaslight just enough credules to allow them to continue to grift. They might be successful in the short term, but in the long term they, and their decendants are fucked. I can only hope I live to see their fuckage!
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore,
So do our minutes hasten to their end . . .
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”