- 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
During Total Meltdown on MSNBC Over SCOTUS and Trump Immunity, Inconvenient Detail Emerges
Posted on 2/29/24 at 9:27 am
Posted on 2/29/24 at 9:27 am
LINK
quote:
As RedState reported, the Supreme Court decided to take up the issue of whether Donald Trump enjoys the broad presidential immunity he claims. Oral arguments will happen in late April, with an expedited decision coming no later than June.
quote:
That news has caused an absolute meltdown on the far left, with MSNBC representing ground zero on Wednesday evening. In perhaps the worst gathering of political personalities in television history, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O'Donnell all appeared together on a three-way split-screen to lambast the Supreme Court for supposedly doing the bidding of Trump.
quote:
Now, wait a second. I was assured that the election-related case against Trump was strictly non-political, presided over by a special prosecutor with only justice on his mind. Given that, why are the three horsemen of the apocalypse in the clip above having a mental breakdown over this? Why do they care about the timeline? They certainly weren't concerned about the January 6th defendants who sat around waiting two to three years for their trials to start.
Why, it's almost as if the entire point of this prosecution is to influence the election, and Maddow and her cohorts are upset it might not happen before November.
quote:
With that said, there's one big problem with the protestations being displayed by the far left: It was Special Counsel Jack Smith who asked SCOTUS to take up the issue.
6
Posted on 2/29/24 at 9:29 am to WPBTiger
these things happen on leap day
Posted on 2/29/24 at 9:35 am to WPBTiger
quote:
with an expedited decision coming no later than June.
No reason to expedite, other than to try to get some interference going before the election
Posted on 2/29/24 at 10:05 am to WPBTiger
quote:
It was Special Counsel Jack Smith who asked SCOTUS to take up the issue.
Yea, months ago and they declined. Then it went to the appeals court and, naturally, they ruled no one has broad immunity.
Now the SCOTUS is just like sike we'll take it after all.
No doubt Dems wanted this pre-election for political reasons, but it's pretty clear the conservative justices are playing their own political game too. I don't see how the timeline can put that in question at all. Their version of "quick" is another 4 month delay after the first 3 month one.
Posted on 2/29/24 at 10:07 am to SpyBoy
quote:
but it's pretty clear the conservative justices are playing their own political game too
Thomas et all are sick of the political bullshite.
They’d rather it stop but had made it clear that if it continued, they would have to address it.
Posted on 2/29/24 at 10:09 am to WPBTiger
quote:
It was Special Counsel Jack Smith who asked SCOTUS to take up the issue.
Wrong. Trump appealed to the USSC
quote:
On Feb. 6, the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld Chutkan’s decision and rejected Trump’s claims that he cannot be prosecuted for his official acts as president and that a former president cannot be prosecuted unless he has first been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
The court of appeals set the stage for Trump’s case to move quickly, telling him that the ruling would go into effect (and the criminal case could move forward) on Feb. 12 unless he asked the Supreme Court to intervene by then.
Here is the DC CAP ruling he appealed to the USSC
This post was edited on 2/29/24 at 10:12 am
Posted on 2/29/24 at 10:13 am to SpyBoy
quote:
Yea, months ago and they declined. Then it went to the appeals court and, naturally, they ruled no one has broad immunity. Now the SCOTUS is just like sike we'll take it after all.
You mean it followed the normal procedure of going to a lower appeals court before moving up to the Supreme Court?
Following normal procedure, the horror!!!
Posted on 2/29/24 at 10:20 am to WPBTiger
I think everyone is getting hung up on Supreme Court rolling with some broad interpretation that presidents are completely immune
In reality what they’re almost 100% likely to do is to rule very narrowly that Trump is immune in this situation by looking at the actual charges and Merritts of the case
There is absolutely no way they can say that he is not immune from charges for simply giving a speech or appointing back up electors on the off chance that some court ruled that Trump was entitled to the presidency in 2020
Also, another thing to consider is that the bs sarbanes Oxley charges applied to the January 6 defendants is almost assuredly going to get thrown out and that is the vast majority of the charges against Trump that carry any weight
In reality what they’re almost 100% likely to do is to rule very narrowly that Trump is immune in this situation by looking at the actual charges and Merritts of the case
There is absolutely no way they can say that he is not immune from charges for simply giving a speech or appointing back up electors on the off chance that some court ruled that Trump was entitled to the presidency in 2020
Also, another thing to consider is that the bs sarbanes Oxley charges applied to the January 6 defendants is almost assuredly going to get thrown out and that is the vast majority of the charges against Trump that carry any weight
This post was edited on 2/29/24 at 10:23 am
Posted on 2/29/24 at 10:24 am to masoncj
The Supreme Court absolutely hates giving broad rulings
As the case with John Roberts opinion on Obamacare, they will find some small way to make Trump immune in this situation, which is completely in 100% politically motivated
Which would leave the door open for future charges against president against an actual person or group , Like murder, rape, or theft
As the case with John Roberts opinion on Obamacare, they will find some small way to make Trump immune in this situation, which is completely in 100% politically motivated
Which would leave the door open for future charges against president against an actual person or group , Like murder, rape, or theft
This post was edited on 2/29/24 at 10:26 am
Posted on 2/29/24 at 10:35 am to masoncj
quote:
The Supreme Court absolutely hates giving broad rulings
As the case with John Roberts opinion on Obamacare, they will find some small way to make Trump immune in this situation, which is completely in 100% politically motivated
I agree they don’t like broad immunity. But I don’t think they are politically motivated. They know POTUS needs broad immunity or lawfare will destroy/neuter the office.
To that end they will find a way to get there. But that’s not politically motivated as you suggest.
Posted on 2/29/24 at 10:43 am to BobBoucher
For clarity I meant that the Democrats law fair against Trump is 100% politically motivated and the Supreme Court can smell a rat a mile away
Posted on 2/29/24 at 10:46 am to SpyBoy
quote:
Now the SCOTUS is just like sike we'll take it after all. No doubt Dems wanted this pre-election for political reasons, but it's pretty clear the conservative justices are playing their own political game too. I don't see how the timeline can put that in question at all. Their version of "quick" is another 4 month delay after the first 3 month one.
SCOTUS denying to hear a case until it’s worked its way entirely through the lower courts is completely standard practice.
Posted on 2/29/24 at 1:17 pm to SpyBoy
Dems and Lib Pundits wanted to F around lately and go after Clarence Thomas... Now they gone learn.
Posted on 2/29/24 at 1:18 pm to LegalEazyE
Let's say they go in Trump's favor. How many of these cases go away?
Posted on 2/29/24 at 1:54 pm to WPBTiger
Cant wait for the narrow decision allowing immunity in this instance but stating it is a case by case determination.
Going to buy some popcorn and watch them scream at the sky.
Going to buy some popcorn and watch them scream at the sky.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News