- 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: BREAKING: Supreme court to take up case on Trump Immunity
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:37 pm to Rebel
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:37 pm to Rebel
quote:
I’m sorry to hear of this setback. I know you people were counting on a spring trial.
If Trump didn't file for an en banc review, it means the Supreme Court may rule prior to the election. It shortened the time before a USSC ruling.
1
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:37 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
If Mayorkas were impeached and convicted, in theory he could be held civilly liable - if not criminally liable for the death of Laken Riley for intentionally neglecting the border.
What?
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:37 pm to boomtown143
The highest court of the land will rule in Trump's favor. What these people are doing has opened a Pandora's Box in this nation. It's really disgraceful.
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:38 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Shouldnt you be sucking off fani right now?
wut
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:38 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Shouldnt you be sucking off fani right now?
He’s next in line behind BamaATL
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:39 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
quote:
I think it would be more shocking if they ruled he was immune to everything and not just official buisness of the office.
If they rule for immunity, then any President can have anyone killed for any reason and it's no problem. Don't see that happening.
So many people in our society have immunity, such as police, amabassadors, judges, etc. yet a US President does not.
I do know a President can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:39 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
He’s next in line behind BamaATL
Perhaps you're mistaking me for someone else.
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What?
If precedent is created by SCOTUS that immunity exists for government officials unless impeached and convicted.
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:40 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
If precedent is created by SCOTUS that immunity exists for government officials unless impeached and convicted.
I was laughing at your ridiculous (and untrue) hypo about civil and criminal liability.
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Perhaps you're mistaking me for someone else.
My bad. I forgot you’re just the fluffer
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:42 pm to teke184
His NYC ruling is over fraud not immunity
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:42 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
My bad. I forgot you’re just the fluffer
No not that either.
You can review the Willis hearing thread for more data, so you stop making up shite only 65-IQ types would believe.
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
From the linked article:
Was this an en banc review?...
quote:
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled against Trump on Feb. 6 but gave him time to file an emergency request at the Supreme Court that would prevent the decision from going into effect.
Was this an en banc review?...
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
f Trump didn't file for an en banc review, it means the Supreme Court may rule prior to the election. It shortened the time before a USSC ruling.
It’s already been stated by the court they will hear the case in April and expedite decision to early June vs normal late June.
It’s being speculated if no more delays, September would be earliest time for a trial.
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:46 pm to SoggyBottomBaw
quote:
Was this an en banc review?...
No en banc is when you request the entire appeals court review the case. In this case it would be a delay tactic to give a few weeks or months space between the ruling you quoted and the Supreme Court ruling.
The theory was he was trying to push this whole thing past the election, but it seems he's not.
I have no idea why he fought Jack Smith trying to go directly to the Supreme Court now
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No not that either.
You must have gotten promoted to sit in the cuck chair
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:48 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
You must have gotten promoted to sit in the cuck chair
No I'm just not living in fantasy land.
Let us know when you come back to reality.
Posted on 2/28/24 at 4:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Let us know when you come back to reality.
Good luck with that one.
Posted on 2/28/24 at 5:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No en banc is when you request the entire appeals court review the case. In this case it would be a delay tactic to give a few weeks or months space between the ruling you quoted and the Supreme Court ruling.
Procedurally, did not having en banc ruling increase the SC's ability to take up this matter?
eta.? Is the deference the SC gives affected?
This post was edited on 2/28/24 at 5:21 pm
Posted on 2/28/24 at 5:20 pm to teke184
quote:
And if he is immune and wins… nothing he does is illegal. It is that old Nixon chestnut of “if the president does it, it isn’t illegal.
So….if Trump us found to be immune….then Biden would be immune….then he could just cancel the election…or whatever he wants.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News