re: Roberts/SCOTUS needs to address this Trump shite right now

quote:

---

If Trump is elected, do you, as an American citizen, want the bullshite lawfare to persist?

---

What I "want" is irrelevant.

Trump interfering with a legal prosecution against him is going to be very costly for him, politically.

Do you want Trump to be impeached and possibly removed by the Senate? Because that's the kind of stuff that will put a lot of the GOP at risk of losing elections in 2026 and may force their hands to not give the DEMs a veto-proof majority

quote:

---

When someone has been ended in a thread, and you choose to drop another steamer on top of it, while posing as a supporter of the ended poster, it's fair for witnesses of such a forum catastrophe to ask whose side your on.
---
My side, a-hole

---

I appreciate your ownership of your stupidity.
I really do.

The invective wasn't sportsmanlike.
But I'm sure your admission was hard, so no offense taken.

quote:

---

Is a POTUS pardon interfering?

---

A President pardoning himself is interfering directly.

It also likely isn't legal, but, that would take a Supreme Court decision, too.

quote:

---

IT IS WHAT THE NOVEMBER ELECTION WILL BE ABOUT, nearly in total.

---

Trump interfering with federal prosecutions against him may be referenced but will be far down the list. IF he wins and IF he interferes, then it's game on.

The DEMs will leverage that interference. These prosecutions are pretty heavily supported by the public and there will be enough pressure on moderates to put Trump in danger from impeachment and possibly removal.

quote:

---

Especially at the Appellate level

---

Justice Ginsburg was a huge proponent of the party presentment rule. In one of her final opinions she wrote

quote:

---

court is not hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel, but the Ninth Circuit's radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale

---

when she remanded for reconsideration United States v. Sineneng-Smith

Justice Scalia appeared to share her thoughts, but she was one of the larger proponents on party presentment.

All the jurists would agree with you that party presentment is more an acute issue at the appellate level as the parties have not had a chance to try or brief the issue being presented sua sponte. A court must raise new issues on subject matter jurisdiction and can’t if a party has waived an issue. If the choose to do it in other circumstances they do risk becoming advocates and potentially deprive the parties of their chance to shape their own case

quote:

---

A President pardoning himself is interfering directly.

It also likely isn't legal, but, that would take a Supreme Court decision, too.

---

You really are eaten up with TDS, aren't you.

The language is clear:
"The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment."

No, a pardon is not interference, any more than an appeal is interference. It's the law.

And unless you see some sort of Presidential self-exception in the language, Section 2 is pretty clear about POTUS rights to pardon, especially as impeachment is noted as an exclusion.

Of course, your posit does raise a second question. Subsequent to a pardon, who would bring the case to SCOTUS anyway? The DOJ would immediately drop charges (which IMO will happen in the absence of a pardon). Under those circumstances, who would have standing to bring the case? Congress? Nope. Their avenue is Impeachment. SCOTUS would point out they swung. They missed. They are free to swing again.

I guess a future administration's DOJ could try ignoring the pardon, and bring the case, which would force the issue to SCOTUS?

Depending on composition of the Senate, the most significant impediment to Trump in this whole process would be Congressional approval of an AG. Trump won't give Congress a second bite at the forced AG recusal apple. So it could make for interesting political theater. Aiding Trump would be the fact that after the Merrick Garland's DOJ circus, there'll be ample blood in the water. Trump was far from the only victim of these SOBs, and weaponized law.

quote:

---

These prosecutions are pretty heavily supported by the public

---

The election will speak to that.

Trump trailed Biden in the polls until Biden unleashed a banana republic style, weaponized DOJ on to Trump.

You think the public would support a newly elected POTUS being disabled from doing his job via Judicial Branch interference? In what TDS twisted fantasy does that make sense?

quote:

---

A President pardoning himself is interfering directly

---

Lololololololol

What about when a President pardons anyone during a trial? Is that interference? That reasoning is stupid.

quote:

---

It also likely isn't legal, but, that would take a Supreme Court decision, too

---

Jonathan Turley and the text of the Constitution disagree.

Justice Roberts was arrested 2 years ago,his neck is on the line ,or has been replaced

quote:

---

You really are eaten up with TDS, aren't you.

---

I don't think Trump is guilty of "insurrection", so I don't see how that is possible.

quote:

---

The DOJ would immediately drop charges

---

We don't know this. There is an old memo, but no actual law or precedential ruling.

Assuming the Constitutional issues do require a pause, and ignoring the pardon issue (since it's very unclear in the present), they could just resolve the issue by having everyone agree to stay the case until he was out of office, then resume the prosecution once he's out of office in January of 2029.

quote:

---

I guess a future administration's DOJ could try ignoring the pardon, and bring the case, which would force the issue to SCOTUS?

---

Assuming the pardon was vali and legal, they could not.

Assuming the pardon was invalid and illegal, they could.

quote:

---

Depending on composition of the Senate, the most significant impediment to Trump in this whole process would be Congressional approval of an AG.

---

No. It would be removal by the Senate after another impeachment.

quote:

---

What about when a President pardons anyone during a trial? Is that interference?

---

Clearly.

quote:

---

That reasoning is stupid.

---

Again, Trump interfering with a legal prosecution against him is going to be very costly for him, politically.

Assuming it's legal and possible, that doesn't remove Trump from the potential political consequences (impeachment and possibly removal).

I don't see what is stupid about understanding people are going to be pissed and a LOT of GOP moderates have to run again 2 years after 2024.

Even if the DEMs couldn't use that threat to flip the GOP, they can flip the Senate bigly in 2026 if the public is also outrages (which I think enough may be).

quote:

---

Jonathan Turley a

---

Many other scholars do not agree with him.

We simply don't know until it gets to the USSC and they rule. Hence why I clearly said:

quote:

---

that would take a Supreme Court decision

---