- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Roberts/SCOTUS needs to address this Trump shite right now
Posted on 1/1/24 at 11:17 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/1/24 at 11:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Sans SCOTUS ruling in advance, how would a future DOJ determine whether the pardon was valid and legal?
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.
Hence my post.
0
Posted on 1/1/24 at 11:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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
You ignored the text of the Constitution.
quote:
and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment
No limitation on who he can pardon. Only a single limitation regarding WHAT he can pardon (as well as only as to offenses against the United States).
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:37 pm to NC_Tigah
I explained why it wasn't true.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
legal prosecution
Posted on 1/1/24 at 1:24 pm to udtiger
quote:
You ignored the text of the Constitution.
Redundant given
quote:
that would take a Supreme Court decision
I'm sure they'll rely on it to make their decision.
quote:
No limitation on who he can pardon.
That's up to the Supreme Court
Posted on 1/1/24 at 1:25 pm to Turbeauxdog
I mean I believe only 1 of his 2 federal cases even has a motion to dismiss, and it's based on potential immunity and not a claim of illegality. If Trump himself isn't making the claim, perhaps we should take note.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 2:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
No limitation on who he can pardon.
That's up to the Supreme Court
No. It's not.
The text is the text.
Basic statutory construction.
There are limitations to the pardon power:
Only for offenses against the United States
Not for impeachment.
The absence of any other limitations means it is unlimited. Period.
The Supreme Court considers the President's pardon power to be "unlimited" beyond those limitations.
LINK .
This post was edited on 1/1/24 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 1/1/24 at 4:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
mean I believe only 1 of his 2 federal cases even has a motion to dismiss, and it's based on potential immunity and not a claim of illegality. If Trump himself isn't making the claim, perhaps we should take note.
Do you ever make a valid point?
Posted on 1/1/24 at 4:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:No.
I explained why it wasn't true.
You opined, and rather nonsensically, I'd add.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 6:03 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Do you ever make a valid point?
I pointed out that even Trump has not argued the prosecutions were not legal, in response to someone laughing at my language confirming the same stance. If you can't understand the point of that simple exchange, it's on you
Posted on 1/1/24 at 6:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You opined
You're the one trying to merge two unrelated concepts (an election of a person and a trial of a person)
Support of one doesn't mean you'll support the other and vice versa.
There are millions of people who will vote for Trump who haven't discarded the system like Patriots have. The only way to get to the merge that you propose is effectively to discard the system and destroy the institutions. Then you can discard anything and say it wasn't real because it wasn't popular.
It's actually a very strong self-fulfilling prophecy as a fallacy because even if I'm right and what I say does happen, then you'll just try to argue that the system is not valid somehow. So let's say Trump is removed by the Senate for engaging in this behavior like I predict, you will shift the blame to something else that you've invalidated like the media and then try to claim that the removal is not valid or legal because of that taint. You create constantly moving targets so that you can never be wrong
Posted on 1/1/24 at 6:19 pm to udtiger
quote:
The Supreme Court considers the President's pardon power to be "unlimited" beyond those limitations.
There is no president from the Supreme Court saying whether or not the president can pardon himself. I understand your proposed interpretation and I've seen others make it, and I've seen other proposed interpretations that disagree, but it's all guessing until we have a precedent. There's nothing controversial with what I'm saying either and I'm not weighing which side of the fence I think they'll come down on or which one I think is right. I'm just making a statement of reality about reality
Posted on 1/2/24 at 5:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:The "person" in this instance is the POTUS.
You're the one trying to merge two unrelated concepts (an election of a person and a trial of a person)
So in this instance, as we have discussed, the civil and criminal accusations will be a part of the Fall campaign. Trump will be asked about his plans in dealing with them hundreds of times in hundreds of ways. His plans re: pardon will be well known to the electorate prior to November.
If he is elected, it will be in large part due to the charges (and the banana republic law they represent) rather than in spite of them. If he is elected, there is also likelihood he'll carry the Senate and House with him.
You opine Congress would impeach Trump if the DOJ dropped the case, and/or if he pardoned himself. Given the premise of GOP Congressional majorities, how exactly, in your opinion, would impeachment go down?
In a scenario where the electorate determines the POTUS & Congress, and POTUS/Congress in turn determine the AG, the charges, trials, and election are not only not "unrelated concepts," they are inextricably linked.
If that is not clear, let me know.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 5:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Have you?
I've seen other proposed interpretations that disagree
As the Constitutional language appears crystal clear, could you cite those interpretations or reproduce their arguments here?
Posted on 1/2/24 at 7:12 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
Roberts has skeletons that likely fill his closet.
He's terrified of running afoul of his hosts' agendas and finding himself off the invite list for the swanky Beltway parties.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 7:19 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
You opine Congress would impeach Trump if the DOJ dropped the case, and/or if he pardoned himself. Given the premise of GOP Congressional majorities, how exactly, in your opinion, would impeachment go down?
Already been explained a few times.
quote:
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.
The 2026 election season starts a few months after the inauguration. If those prosecutions just go poof, it's going to create the biggest shitstorm Trump may have ever faced. Assuming the GOP has a majority in one of the houses, there will be a LOT of pressure on every moderate GOP member in either chamber with an election in 2026 to come out against this. Either the GOP members can be pressured into the support of removal or the DEMs can try to get the #s to remove him in 2026.
quote:
In a scenario where the electorate determines the POTUS & Congress, and POTUS/Congress in turn determine the AG, the charges, trials, and election are not only not "unrelated concepts," they are inextricably linked.
Again, there are a LOT of GOP voters who will hold their nose and vote for Trump without rallying direct supporting Trump, and they will do so believing he'll beat the criminal cases in court.
And this is also all just a conversation about the 2 federal cases. Trump has 2 other criminal cases in state courts that he can't stop (either via pardon or administratively). If Trump gets convicted on either/both of those, while having a hand in dropping his federal cases, it will make him look like he knew he was guilty of the federal cases and "cheated to win", as Eddie Guerrero would say.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 7:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If those prosecutions just go poof, it's going to create the biggest shitstorm Trump may have ever faced. Assuming the GOP has a majority in one of the houses, there will be a LOT of pressure on every moderate GOP member in either chamber with an election in 2026 to come out against this. Either the GOP members can be pressured into the support of removal or the DEMs can try to get the #s to remove him in 2026.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 7:30 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
could you cite those interpretations or reproduce their arguments here?
Brookings
Frank O. Bowman, III (
UVA Law discussion on it
There are even some historical-language arguments that would fit in with the originalist interpretation that's favored on the court now. Now I will say that sometimes the same justices will shift from originalism to more of a "pure" textualism and back, depending on the politics of the case.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 7:31 am to udtiger
quote:
imagine the outrage about all of this results in BOTH houses of Congress going to the GOP.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 9:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Your political opinions are neither "explanations," nor effective counters to fact.
Already been explained a few times.
quote:That is your opinion. IMO, any public "support" is tenuous and based on the nature of a one-sided narrative to this point. As an example of tenuity, polling skews the public very heavily against unfair or disproportionate application of law. Establishing the fact of unfairness will slaughter public acceptance of the DOJ BS.
These prosecutions are pretty heavily supported by the public
Again, the Fall process will serve as a referendum as national elections always do. The structure of the POTUS campaign will substantiate an antithetical narrative to that currently being fed to the populace. If not, Trump will not be elected.
If the public holds the perception in November which you claim it does now, Trump will not be electable. Simple as that.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News