- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: SCOTUS Opinion Release Day - July 1 (Trump Immunity, NetChoice, Corner Post)
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:51 am to JimEverett
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:51 am to JimEverett
quote:
Sotomayor does not use "respectfully" with "dissent" here or at the end of her dissent, which concludes: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
L
O
L
1
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:52 am to Kjnstkmn
quote:
Fox calls it
That's not really what the court said, at all.
It pretty much remanded the case back to the federal district court judge (Chutkan), for her to make a determination on which acts are considered official and those considered unofficial.
You'll likely have Chutkan schedule evidentiary hearings specific to acts of Trump related to January 6. She'll issue her ruling, which will likely deem those acts as unofficial. It'll then go back up the chain through the DC Appellate Court, and back to SCOTUS. None of this will happen prior to the election, though.
This post was edited on 7/1/24 at 9:55 am
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:53 am to DarthRebel
quote:
Justice Thomas writes a concurring opinion in which he questions the validity of Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel. "If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone authorized to do so by the American people."
If that's not a shot across the bow, I don't know what is.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:54 am to DarthRebel
quote:
Ah shite, from Thomas
I like the several sentences around that one
quote:
By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President. No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:56 am to Bard
quote:
If that's not a shot across the bow, I don't know what is.
1 of 9. Nobody joined in with him.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:57 am to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
It pretty much remanded the case back to the federal district court judge (Chutkan), for her to make a determination on which acts are considered official and those considered unofficial.
Not really. They had some specific things they listed. It goes like this:
- Trump Was president
- Trump talking to Pence is absolute immunity
- Trump giving a speech and then telling people to go home was as President.
etc etc.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:58 am to rt3
quote:
By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President. No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.
This seems like a really big damn deal
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:58 am to rt3
quote:
It's noted that Trump's side was saying his actions all fell on the "outer perimeter" of his authority
My prediction is this will go back to the lower courts, they'll decide he wasn't operating in an official capacity, it'll get back to SCOTUS, and they'll have to decide that courts can't tell a president what are or aren't his official duties.
This post was edited on 7/1/24 at 10:00 am
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:59 am to geauxtigers87
quote:
Sotomayor does not use "respectfully" with "dissent" here or at the end of her dissent, which concludes: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
I feel she does that on the bigger cases of every term... it's lost its luster b/c she uses that tactic so much
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
1 of 9. Nobody joined in with him.
That doesn't necessarily mean they disagree.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:01 am to SG_Geaux
quote:
This seems like a really big damn deal
it's part of a concurring opinion... not part of the actual Order of the Court... so it doesn't have the full weight of the Court behind it
but it is very interesting that a Justice would say that... could set the ball in motion for something else down the line
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:01 am to boomtown143
Reminder: The insurrection that took place on January 6, 2021 was AGAINST Trump, not BY him.
After all, how do you seek to "overthrow" the government that you're the head of?
After all, how do you seek to "overthrow" the government that you're the head of?
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:02 am to Bard
quote:
That doesn't necessarily mean they disagree.
No, but it's a sign they don't agree and don't want their name associated with the dissent.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:03 am to BCreed1
quote:
A couple of additional points from the Roberts opinion: The court indicates that the president's immunity for official acts "extends to the outer perimeter of the President's official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority."
And in determining what is or is not official conduct, "courts may not inquire into the President's motives."
An action is not unofficial, the court adds, just because "it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:04 am to imjustafatkid
So basically it was determined that the courts in all these cases didn’t do their jobs in arguing was is it isn’t an official act. They have to start over and all of this will take forever and then go back to the SCOTUS and by then it will be too late. I predict more impeachment proceedings while Trump is serving his second term.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:05 am to dkreller
quote:
The court also notes in a footnote that the district court "if necessary" should consider whether two of the charges brought by Jack Smith against Trump in Washington, involving the obstruction of an official proceeding, can go forward in light of the court's ruling last week in Fischer v. United States, narrowing the scope of that law.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:06 am to dkreller
quote:
So basically it was determined that the courts in all these cases didn’t do their jobs in arguing was is it isn’t an official act.
No. This ruling had not been handed down with the parameters with which to make the ruling.
That's why it's being remanded for consideration (after evidentiary hearing) following this decision.
quote:
I predict more impeachment proceedings
Impeachment has nothing to do with this
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Impeachment has nothing to do with this
Clearly you don’t understand my implication with that statement.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:09 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
This! It’s over for garland’s lawfair. frick that dude….
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:10 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Yes sir!
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News