- 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 12/30/23 at 4:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/30/23 at 4:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I "ended"
Posted on 12/30/23 at 4:58 pm to NC_Tigah
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
Posted on 12/30/23 at 5:55 pm to KiwiHead
quote:I appreciate your ownership of your stupidity.
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 really do.
The invective wasn't sportsmanlike.
But I'm sure your admission was hard, so no offense taken.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 6:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Is a POTUS pardon interfering?
Trump interfering
quote:... this has been discussed ad nauseum.... IT IS WHAT THE NOVEMBER ELECTION WILL BE ABOUT, nearly in total.
very costly for him, politically.
You know that ... or at least, you should.
You're a bright guy. It's been explained to you.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 6:14 pm to NC_Tigah
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.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 6:17 pm to Westbank111
quote:
They want to cause a civil war
Posted on 12/30/23 at 6:27 pm to Wednesday
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:when she remanded for reconsideration United States v. Sineneng-Smith
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
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
This post was edited on 12/30/23 at 6:32 pm
Posted on 12/30/23 at 7:24 pm to udtiger
I thought y’all loved states rights? What’s the big deal?
Posted on 12/31/23 at 12:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You really are eaten up with TDS, aren't you.
A President pardoning himself is interfering directly.
It also likely isn't legal, but, that would take a Supreme Court decision, too.
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.
This post was edited on 12/31/23 at 2:28 am
Posted on 12/31/23 at 12:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:The election will speak to that.
These prosecutions are pretty heavily supported by the public
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?
Posted on 12/31/23 at 12:41 am to NC_Tigah
Says prosecutions are “pretty heavily” supported by the public, yet Trump’s lead in the primaries has increased, and he’s increased in the general election polls as well….all of which occurring post-indictment.
Posted on 12/31/23 at 4:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
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.
Posted on 12/31/23 at 4:51 pm to udtiger
You talking the Roberts who took plane rides with Epstein and was blackmailed to vote for Obamacare?
We can pray but his neck is being squeezed by the Elite Machine.
We can pray but his neck is being squeezed by the Elite Machine.
Posted on 12/31/23 at 11:44 pm to LSUvet72
Justice Roberts was arrested 2 years ago,his neck is on the line ,or has been replaced
Posted on 1/1/24 at 1:50 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
Roberts has skeletons that likely fill his closet.
Well there is a "John Roberts" on Epstein's flight logs. Just sayin'..
Posted on 1/1/24 at 9:24 am to NC_Tigah
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.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 9:28 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The election will speak to that.
That's not true.
quote:
You think the public would support a newly elected POTUS being disabled from doing his job via Judicial Branch interference?
I think the public supports the rule of law and the EC is designed to skew a fair representation of the national support of candidates.
Remember, if the President was elected via popular vote, it would be almost impossible for a Republican to have a hope of winning. That excess Democrat support can sway moderates after an election if Trump engages in behavior that the moderates find offensive.
I imagine there are a TON of moderates who would never imagine Trump would interfere in his various prosecutions if he won the Presidency, and they would react very unfavorably if he did. Their support of trump assumes he would be subject to the laws of the US like anyone else. It would only be a conditional support. Very few people outside of MAGA-land see this as "prosecutorial interference" and exponentially fewer see it as "judicial interference".
This post was edited on 1/1/24 at 9:30 am
Posted on 1/1/24 at 9:35 am to udtiger
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
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News