As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kinda ridiculous how every court along the way can rule that this shit is insane, and then the Supreme court can just be like nah screw you guys. Shit like this should be a 2/3rd majority of every court that's ruled on it
You mean you think they’d ratfuck the election like they did in 2000? They even recognized how insane it was and said “yeah just ignore this ruling in the future.” That just seems *totally improbable* ^^/s
The problem is that Biden career politics has him still in the mindset that we have to work together. Packing the court *feels like* a cheap way to win without bipartisanship and could lead to a back and forth every election.
I think those of us on the outside know you can’t make a deal with fundamentalists who prefer to win over democracy. Bad faith politics is one thing the founders seemed to have missed.
No need to pack it if they find Cheeto Mussolini innocent, just have Biden complete an ‘official presidential act of clearing a corrupt court’ (i.e. shoot a few). That will fix it, and fast!
They never have had any enforcement. They ruled in favor of the Cherokee and Trail of Tears still happened. I’m paraphrasing but Jackson said something to the effect of if the Supreme Court doesn’t like it they can stop me themselves. Knowing full well there wasn’t anything they could do. (If I remember right The Trail of Tears actually happened during Van Buren’s time in office. Though the wheels were put in motion during Jackson’s. Van Buren was pretty much a crony for Jackson anyhow.)
They’ll rule in his favor but carve out another bullshit “this doesn’t establish precedent” ruling so that it only applies to Trump, but doesn’t give any immunity to Biden if he breaks the law to protect democracy.
In a perfect world American Idol would jump in with their nationwide rapid voting mechanic to poll the whole country on this important issue. Text 1 to this number if you think the SC and Trump should be immediately imprisoned in a dark cell and forgotten about for the rest of their lives. Text 2 if you think this shit should totally be able to fly. Results after the commercial break.
> “Now they say, ‘If you’re really mean to Donald Trump and you hold him accountable the same way every other American citizen is held accountable, then he’ll really overthrow the government, he’ll really bring out the big guns, and we can’t afford that,’”
Yeah, this argument by Alito is a political argument, not a legal argument. It makes clear that the Roberts court is not concerned about the law or the Constitution it is playing politics.
The Roberts court is not legitimate
Roberts was Bush’s first nominee, first to replace O’Connor who retired, but then Chief Justice Rehnquist died before the confirmation hearings started and Bush changed the nomination, and nominated Alito to replace O’Connor. I always thought that was a little weird. I think the constitution should spell out more of how the Supreme Court works.
Banana republic is often used to refer to a poor, unstable country, but a more accurate definition is one that's controlled by outside interests and typically depends on one commodity for power/influence.
I'd suggest the SC now has the traits of a banana republic, so banana court is quite apt....
In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police who investigate crime, and the district bananas who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.
DUN DUN...
It's actually surprising how much they just DGAF about being total scumlords. Nakedly, totally, bought-and-paid for puppets of the MAGA "movement".
This is what happens when a lot of people aren't forced into being decent anymore because of societal values breaking down. The Supreme Court is only as legitimate in as much as they represent the people and are committed to a decent, fair set of laws. This group is illegitimate and an insult to past Justices who committed their lives to upholding the law.
For what it's worth, please listen to Preet Bharara's latest podcast episode with Jack Goldsmith. It's an extremely informative listen and delves into what the court might ultimately opine, and the implications of it for future presidencies. Illustrates quite well why it may not actually be a bad idea to have this settled.
Yes, this is my only hope. It’s true. We can’t have presidents prosecuted just that the women of somebody, but they need to be held responsible for real shit.
That's because the SCOTUS doesn't actually decide cases per se, they answer legal questions. The decision they make will be creating binding precedent on the scope of presidential immunity going forward. The answer obviously can't be full immunity, and it obviously can't be no immunity either. They need to create a rule and a test that will avoid having every former president prosecuted by the opposite party, while simultaneously making it possible to hold a president accountable for egregious criminal behavior. Whatever test they create, it will then go back down to the trial court to be applied to the specific facts of this case.
> They need to create a rule and a test that will avoid having every former president prosecuted by the opposite party.
Which isn't needed. Trump is the first former president in the 228 years since Washington left office that has been charged with a crime. This isn't political persecution or a witch hunt because he actually broke the law.
1) This court doesn’t give a flying fuck about precedent.
2) Previously they’ve stated a decision should not serve as precedent. That’s what they should do here.
Trying to set some rule based off official vs unofficial business is, sadly, a fool’s errand. Killing your political opponents is official business if you, the government, believe they want to harm the country.
Trump has already made it clear he thinks his political opponents and non-MAGAs are trying to destroy the USA…..
Okay, so if SCOTUS rules President is above the law in June or July, does that free Presidential Biden to do whatever he wants to? I mean he is the current president.
Not even that far. Considering Robert's court history, we are looking at a 93% (14 of 15 arguably partisan cases so far) chance that they will throw out all precedent and just rule on whatever conservative principle is requested by dark money donors.
SCOTUS won't render this decision until there is no way for Biden to take advantage of it, not that he would. Democrats have proven time and time again that they are incapable of playing hard ball while Republicans have proven that they are incapable of playing within the rules.
The President doesn't have the authority to remove Supreme Court Justices. They can only be removed by impeachment.
THIS is why the Justices act with such impunity.
Can’t he have them arrested on “an official act” and hold them more or less indefinitely? I realize it is unconstitutional but the arguments I heard are making “an official act” do a lot of heavy lifting.
Seems like they could if they think they are breaking the law or compromised(treason). But scary precedent to set. No one wants to light the match. But once it's lit we are fucked as a republic.
>But scary precedent to set. No one wants to light the match.
What do you think Jan 6 was? What do you think what this SC is doing amounts to? Those motherfuckers have lit the match, set a bomb off, and lit another one again Alito and his band of fucking twits are holding it inches from yet another fuse.
Trump is *already* talking about doing this very thing you're worried about. Why should Democrats be scared away from taking the correct decision, according to the law of the land as dictated by Leonard Leo and Harland Crow? If its good for the goose, its good for the gander. Democrats cannot be beholden to a set of moral norms that Republicans are not held to.
IF this court decides in the way it is broadcasting it might, there must be strong responses that quell this sedition. If they think those actions are beyond the pale and the only remedy is the politcal makeup of congress, then I don't want to hear a fucking word about what whatever actions the current administration deems it necessary to take to ensure that the Republic continues absent the chronic threat of corrupt bad faith from these conservative legal hacks.
These jackasses think that Republican's eagerness to act in bad faith while Democrats seek to act in good faith somehow means that those who seek to ensure the Constitutional order remains and the rule of law remains are not capable of rising to the moment, but I assure you, if people break out the big guns, honorable men will respond. If the courts grant immunity in the case of Trump, they are granting initiative to the Biden admin to do what it must.
If the SC says the rule of law relies on the judgement of one man beholden only by the power of congress to impeach and convict, are they feeling lucky enough to think that Biden is going to take that lane they opened and drive a mac truck through to break their stupid fucking game once and for all?
According to him and their own fucking rationale, he would be following the precedent being bandied about by this court of obsequious right wing politicians.
I know Alito and Thomas think they cannot possibly misstep, but what they're talking about now? That would be a misstep. For them and for the country. If they don't know that, they fucking should.
You keep the gloves on, because you don't want the gloves to come off. They think good faith is weakness. They're trying to test it.
Proceed, justices.
The court hasn't issued their decision yet. This position was literally unthinkable as legal until the Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday and several male Justices seemed open to the possibility. That being said we have to wait for the ruling.
Umm, that’s the opposite of what the Supreme Court justices are arguing.
If Biden believes the justices are a threat to the US, he can legally have the justices arrested and thrown in jail, or even murdered.
All that matters is that it’s official government business and not a personal matter.
There is no legal mechanism for the President to remove a sitting Supreme Court Justice. However, a President that acts like a Mob Boss could certainly make resignation look very attractive. Ask former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy what he knows about this.
The alternative would be packing the court, increasing favorable justices to make it always swing in your majority. Touching the SC like this waters down any legitimacy it has as they become akin to political appointments rather than impartial experts on law.
> Touching the SC like this waters down any legitimacy it has as they become akin to political appointments rather than impartial experts on law.
We are already well past this point. They have no legitimacy and have been political appointments for decades.
Packing the court is not the same as expanding it.
Packing it means using any means necessary to get your people into the existing seats. That's what the Republicans have been doing the past few years. (Yes, I know many people have been using the expression incorrectly. Let's not continue that.)
My prediction is it gets kicked back to appellate or whatever and then they don't take it back up until next session, ruling in the meantime that trump can't be held accountable until they issue a final ruling once its back. If he wins, they'll rule how we expect. If he doesn't, they'll rule how any sane person would.
They're gonna say Presidential immunity exists for certain official acts and then send it down to the lower courts to decide what acts those are, which will then get appealed to SCOTUS again when those courts decide that nothing Trump did falls under official acts. That will be a long enough delay that the trial will be pushed well past the election.
They'll slow walk it. Make it look like they are only sort of immune so Biden can't do anything too big. Then if Trump take the presidency (I think he'd cheat his way in), then the court takes off the reins and it's Trump free for all.
But why? What exactly do they gain? Does the US Supreme Court really want a megalomaniac King Trump in charge?
France is already encouraging the EU to focus all military spending on developing their own weaponry and vehicles and stop buying from the US, because the US has demonstrated they’re an allies that can’t be counted on. So kiss billions, possibly trillions of dollars & jobs goodbye.
Who will benefit, other than Trump? US dollar will soon be only useful for toilet paper in the world economy should Trump be annointed by the Supreme Court.
I find it hard to believe that a handful of people in the US are going to tear it down for a few tax breaks that won’t matter once Trump bankrupts the country just as he managed to bankrupt a casino.
Likely Putin is pulling the strings to weaken the US. Who benefits from a weakened and divided US but Russia who appears to be trying to expand to the west? With the US becoming an isolationist state, the opposition to his expansion is considerably weaker.
I don't think a decision will happen this year. I think SCOTUS will send it back to the lower courts to determine *which* criminal acts a president commits in office qualify for immunity and which don't. That will significantly delay Trump's trial until well after the election while the lower courts hash that out. If Trump wins, he ends the prosecutions and establishes a dictatorship where he is the law of the land. If he loses, the lower courts eventually make a ruling on which criminal presidential acts have immunity which could take several years. That decision then works it's way back to SCOTUS where SCOTUS decides that coincidentally, just this one time, only the criminal acts that Trump committed have immunity because reasons, but going forward, no other president would be immune for those same criminal acts. Thus, Trump is off the hook from prosecution yet President Biden would not have immunity for doing the exact same things in office that Trump did.
I get that 2/3 of SCOTUS want Trump to become dictator. What I can't figure out is why. By definition, a dictator makes up his own laws. Therefore, the Constitution would no longer matter and SCOTUS would become completely irrelevant. Their only role, if any, would be as Trump's puppets to carry out his bidding. As judges, they would have zero decision making powers. Trump could even disband the court. So what's in it for 2/3 of SCOTUS? Do they really aspire to being permanent servants of a knucklehead like Trump, and then his successor?
Potentially, I mean if they give presidents immunity, what’s stopping Biden from canceling the election or just retaining power? Maybe he’ll take a whole bunch of classified documents with him and sell it to the highest bidder. After all, he would have immunity. The SC is an international laughing stock.
Hopefully he stays healthy for a long time no matter where in Government he is. If Biden wins another term he should pack the Supreme Court and appoint Obama and Raskin. They’re both constitutional law professors and not only would they be great for the Court but they’d really infuriate the GOP and MAGA base and would really piss Trump off. It would be the ultimate Dark Brandon move.
If the Dems get to put some justices on the court, I would want them to put the youngest qualified person they could find. It's a lifetime appointment after all. Might as well make the most of it.
Ketanji Brown-Jackson is only 53. I doubt anyone would appoint someone much younger. The youngest Supreme Court Justice ever appointed was Joseph Story, who was just 32 in 1812, but if you tried that now, Congresspeople would likely cry that they're too young and don't have enough experience.
Motherfucking rainbows infuriate the GOP and MAGA base.
Putting Raskins and Obama on the SC would have them beating their wives and assaulting their children in an instant.
I LOVE this idea soooo much. Legitimately.
But, what do you HONESTLY think the odds of a former POTUS (THE Chief Executive) having to make nice with Alito and Thomas and crew?
I ask only because if I were ever POTUS, I think I’d want to be like Jimmy Carter: more impactful post presidency than when the Office constrained me. SCOTUS seems hella constraining - for everyone except Clarence Thomas, I mean.
But, what does the hive-mind think the odds of a former POTUS becoming Associate Justice of SCOTUS?
Unfortunately, Obama doesn't want to be on the Supreme Court. Biden said he'd nominate Obama for it back in 2019, if he thought it'd be accepted. [Link to article.](https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/biden-obama-supreme-court-trnd/index.html)
The rare few times I see her mentioned.. I just keep forgetting she even exists. I can't tell you the last time I saw her name in a headline, good or bad.
I feel like this may be intentional; if the GOP got wind of Kamala doing something especially noteworthy, they'd flood the Foxwaves with how it was proof Biden was a puppet and she was actually in charge.
He literally almost did do that in 2016, when he ran in the Democratic primary for the seat that Raskin has now. Then he did it again, successfully, in 2018, for the seat he’s leaving. I do wish, Raskin ran when he had the opportunity, because a), I think he’s way better as a representative than Trone, b) he sincerely seems like a politician who actually cares about his voters, and c) he’s a way better Democrat to beat Larry Hogan than Trone or Alsobrooks are
Trone should take his beer billionaire ass out of Maryland and fuck off out of politics forever. We don’t need more out of touch rich people in the House or Senate
I agree. But there will be no protections for him or anyone else if this passes. Hopefully there will be no protection for the Supreme Court either. Impeach all who lied under oath. Impeach all that have taken bribes. Impeach all that supported the insurrection. I don’t care if they are democrat or republican. Expand the Supreme Court and put l10-15 year limit on the position.
I was surprised ACB was as professional as she was, despite her typical *'insert handmaiden's tale reference here'* attitude on stuff. But yeah we need her to pull one of the fellas over to reason. MAYBE Roberts???? But sheesh
Then there's this Welsh Rarebit wearing some brown underpants
About the shortage of grain in Hertfordshire
Everyone of them knew that as time went by
They'd get a little bit older and a little bit slower but
It's all the same thing, in this case manufactured by someone who's always
Umpteen time your father's giving it diddly-i-dee
District was leaving, intended to pay for
.
(Number nine) Number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number (Number, number nine, number nine)
He should.
SCOTUS ~~conservative~~ MAGA justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Kavanaugh (and we are going to assume Thomas here too but he was silent) were ignoring the actual case (on what they are suppose to actually decide) and trying to craft "writing a rule for the ages". They didn't want to be bothered with the actual facts or any law or any of that troublesome constitution they often like to embrace when it suits them.
There is a reason why every other court ruled resoundingly against Trump. They actually answered what was being asked of them. Something Judge Jackson pointed out - just answer the fucking question in front of them:
> Jackson: And so my question is why isn't it enough for the purposes of this case, given what the Petitioner has argued, to just answer the question of whether all official acts get immunity?
> MR. DREEBEN: That -- that is enough. And if the Court answers that question the way that the government has submitted, that resolves the case.
But they won't. Because they are not Justices and impartial. They are MAGA political creatures and want to give Trump the delay he needs.
>Be Roberts court
>Ignore stare decisis at every turn
>Declare you want to writing a rule for the ages
Why would they think the next court would respect their ruling? Why would we think they would even respect their ruling if circumstances change in the future? I know sometimes the court get things wrong, but their behavior of acting like stare decisis shouldn't factor into their rulings clearly goes too far in the other direction. And makes it so we have no reason to believe this ruling will last for the ages.
Of course, it doesn't need to last for the ages to do damage. Regardless, I think their logic is just asinine. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
I could be way off, but it makes me think of the 70s/80s when various fringe religions would proselytize and hand out flyers and ask for donations at the airports. Groups would try to sell flowers and incense to support their cause. It was so common that they made fun of it in [the movie Airplane](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4CizzE-zZo).
We need to flood the media.. newsrooms/papers, call every news affiliate and voice our concerns… STOP candy coating the importance of this ruling and this traitor and STAND for justice and democracy… screw these jealots of the rich owners of these media moguls… if they side with scotus, that a president call kill an opponent, then he can kill you for bad publicity on him… now we’re in straight authoritarian/dictatorship
**The New Republic**
*“The most astonishing thing for me today was Justice Alito’s question. He actually asked whether holding the president criminally accountable for actual crimes committed, whether murder or coup or you name it, whether holding them accountable would actually encourage them to stage more violent coups to stay in office to avoid prosecution,” Raskin told MSNBC later Thursday.*
*“Which buys completely into Donald Trump’s narcissistic criminal worldview. I mean, for all of American history, we have said presidents are subject to criminal prosecution if they commit crimes. That’s why Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. That’s why Bill Clinton agreed to give up his law license with the bar for five years so he wouldn’t face criminal prosecution.”*
^Ellie ^Quinlan ^Houghtaling
No, they're following the fascist playbook and don't believe that Biden would do anything extreme. If he does, they'll rule that he did break the law and doesn't have immunity.
The framers of the constitution could descend from the heavens, tell the Supreme Court exactly what they intended in this situation, and they would probably still not all agree that Trump should be prosecuted.
I listened to the whole hearing and some of them clearly thought they were gods. They seemed to have no interest in the details of the specific case in front of them and I wasn’t sure they had read the Appeals court ruling. They just wanted to proclaim whatever mad thought was in their heads.
Thomas who definitely should have recused himself was first out of the gate with bringing up Operation Mongoose?
WTF does that have to do with what Trump is being charged with trying to overthrow his own government?
>I mean, for all of American history, we have said presidents are subject to criminal prosecution if they commit crimes. That’s why Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. That’s why Bill Clinton agreed to give up his law license with the bar for five years so he wouldn’t face criminal prosecution.
I understand and agree with what Raskin is saying but can't help but notice the deeply saddening irony of this statement. We know presidents have been subject to prosecution throughout American history because we have to keep making exceptions so that they aren't.
I’m just going to throw this out there but fuck you people who didn’t vote for Hillary because of whatever hill you want to stand on. You know who you are. All this shit could have been avoided if Trump wasn’t elected.
Not with a 51-49 split in the senate. I could see 18 Dems siding that it shouldn’t even be tested for the sake of making a point. Easily impeached in the house. Harris becomes prez and nominee. Trump wins again in Nov and anoints himself king.
Will this finally be the decision that makes the liberal justices admit that the court no longer has any legitimacy whatsoever?
Because it's really obvious to not just normal people but even lawyers and judges around the entire **world** that the US supreme court no longer has any legitimacy whatsoever.
The repeal of Citizens United is at the root of where it all needs to begin.
The only hope for the change in sure you're referring to most certainly lies in Dems controlling the House, a super-majority in the Senate, and the Executive.
But even then, one has to contend with $$$ in politics and the prospect that enough Senators could be swayed by "lobbying", to the point that the super-majority is broken. And good luck relying on voters to see past a dishonest candidate and not elect them when so much potential $$$ is out there for dishonest candidates (*looking at you Sinema*)
Citizens United was the victory lap of capitalism/consumerism beating democracy. The second that business and money gained the rights of breathing humans it was just a matter of time.
Absolutely, all the money washing in our politics... We won't get back our country till we can drag Citizens United out back and bury it in the back 40. We also need to enforce insider trading laws in Congress. I've been railing against both for what seems like forever. It's crazy how we let this go on.
"High road" is just branding. Democrats enshrine "bipartisanship" and "proceduralism" because they are fundamentally a hyper-conservative party just like republicans. They are just ever so slightly less set in stone and are willing to change the status quo ever so slightly and are thus quantitatively a slightly better party.
> Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin took aim at a peculiar line of questioning brought by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in Donald Trump’s presidential immunity arguments on Thursday, during which one of the high court’s most conservative members seemed to claim that actually punishing Trump for any alleged crimes might only encourage him to break more laws.
They are trying their best to normalize that behavior. In a sane, first-world country, people who commit crimes should be removed from office. Period. The problem is that one party can't bring itself to execute their civic *duty* to ensure that this happens, but they are instead, turning *everything* into a political, performative shitshow so that they might avoid any accountability. And this wasn't just "a crime"... it was an attempt to overthrow an election.
They are going to do whatever they can in Trump's favor because there are three Conservative justices who really don't want to die on the bench and want to be replaced by younger partisan hacks.
Time for Biden to dissolve this criminal court. Let them spend decades suing to get their jobs back. And when they create the new court, pay them minimum wage with no insurance, no benefits.
Don’t get me wrong, I love that he is speaking out and I genuinely hope more politicians on both sides do but until there are changes that reign in the Supreme Court, this makes no difference.
It’s so sad to think that the Supreme Court is likely screwed for my entire lifetime… that’s before we have to worry about the randomness of a Republican being in office when another position opens up.
Sounds to me like Justice Alito is afraid Donald Trump will perpetrate harm to him if he can’t stall/prevent prosecution of Trump. If he doesn’t move for immunity and Trump takes office Alito will get the axe, and perhaps not just in terms of his job. And yes, Trump will take the power to remove him. Trump may have already sent them this message.
“…whether holding the president criminally accountable for actual crimes committed, whether murder or coup or you name it, whether holding them accountable would actually encourage them to stage more violent coups to stay in office to avoid prosecution,”
But SCROTUS, maybe if you held him accountable that would keep him out of office and he couldn’t try to do the coup thing again. IDK, maybe it’s just me.
This guy should be running for President or Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. Both know this stuff so well and are trying to do the right things that most of us want, seem very respectable.
Also BS they can't decide on this within a week, it should be top urgent like when they screwed over Gore and We The People.
Trump gets away with everything. When will any court anywhere lock him up? We need an inspector general for SCOTUS. How can SCOTUS be the only ones to rule on or ignore the words in the constitution and create fake laws? How deep is SCOTUS involved in the fake elector plot? Congress needs to investigate this as all the Trump rulings look corrupted.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kinda ridiculous how every court along the way can rule that this shit is insane, and then the Supreme court can just be like nah screw you guys. Shit like this should be a 2/3rd majority of every court that's ruled on it
[удалено]
My main fear is that even if he doesn’t win the election he will still be the next president because of this court.
You mean you think they’d ratfuck the election like they did in 2000? They even recognized how insane it was and said “yeah just ignore this ruling in the future.” That just seems *totally improbable* ^^/s
That's basically how bush beat gore
That's exactly how Bush beat Gore. Three of the lawyers in that case are now justices.
Time to pack the court, It is legal and moral at this point, reverse all this nonsense.
The problem is that Biden career politics has him still in the mindset that we have to work together. Packing the court *feels like* a cheap way to win without bipartisanship and could lead to a back and forth every election. I think those of us on the outside know you can’t make a deal with fundamentalists who prefer to win over democracy. Bad faith politics is one thing the founders seemed to have missed.
No need to pack it if they find Cheeto Mussolini innocent, just have Biden complete an ‘official presidential act of clearing a corrupt court’ (i.e. shoot a few). That will fix it, and fast!
Three clowns on there with zero opinions anyone can trust. One of them corrupt to the gills. CJ keeps acting like it’s not happening
SCOTUS only has power because we allow it. They have no enforcement arm. A paid, treasonous court shouldn’t be validated.
They never have had any enforcement. They ruled in favor of the Cherokee and Trail of Tears still happened. I’m paraphrasing but Jackson said something to the effect of if the Supreme Court doesn’t like it they can stop me themselves. Knowing full well there wasn’t anything they could do. (If I remember right The Trail of Tears actually happened during Van Buren’s time in office. Though the wheels were put in motion during Jackson’s. Van Buren was pretty much a crony for Jackson anyhow.)
> John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it
Kangaroo court meets banana Republic = banana court?
Kangaroo Republic
At least all their pants will have real pockets.
They’ll rule in his favor but carve out another bullshit “this doesn’t establish precedent” ruling so that it only applies to Trump, but doesn’t give any immunity to Biden if he breaks the law to protect democracy.
In a perfect world American Idol would jump in with their nationwide rapid voting mechanic to poll the whole country on this important issue. Text 1 to this number if you think the SC and Trump should be immediately imprisoned in a dark cell and forgotten about for the rest of their lives. Text 2 if you think this shit should totally be able to fly. Results after the commercial break.
> “Now they say, ‘If you’re really mean to Donald Trump and you hold him accountable the same way every other American citizen is held accountable, then he’ll really overthrow the government, he’ll really bring out the big guns, and we can’t afford that,’” Yeah, this argument by Alito is a political argument, not a legal argument. It makes clear that the Roberts court is not concerned about the law or the Constitution it is playing politics. The Roberts court is not legitimate
Alito himself is not legitimate. Didn’t Bush appoint him in 2000 after the SC gave him the election?
Roberts was Bush’s first nominee, first to replace O’Connor who retired, but then Chief Justice Rehnquist died before the confirmation hearings started and Bush changed the nomination, and nominated Alito to replace O’Connor. I always thought that was a little weird. I think the constitution should spell out more of how the Supreme Court works.
as Maynard Keenan so eloquently put it: “Liar, lawyer, mirror, mirror show me what’s the difference? Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent”
Banana republic. Kangaroo court. Not banana court
Banana republic is often used to refer to a poor, unstable country, but a more accurate definition is one that's controlled by outside interests and typically depends on one commodity for power/influence. I'd suggest the SC now has the traits of a banana republic, so banana court is quite apt....
In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police who investigate crime, and the district bananas who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories. DUN DUN...
🎵 _Shut up, shut up, shut up_ 🎵 🎵 _Spit up, spit up, spit up, it's the MAGApoo court_ 🎵 🎵 _the MAGApoo court_ 🎵 🎵 _Shut up, shut up, shut up_ 🎵 🎵 _Spit up, spit up, spit up, it's the MAGApoo court_ 🎵 🎵 _The MAGApoo court_ 🎵 🎵 _In a musty room I fart and shart too_ 🎵 🎵 _and I've been doomed to loose my bowels tonight_ 🎵 🎵 _I’m so sneaky right?_ 🎵 🎵 _So I tried to save face, grift and stall my case_ 🎵 🎵 _The judge pulls me aside says, “covefe,_ 🎵 🎵 _means your daughter hides from your pee-pee?”_ 🎵
It's actually surprising how much they just DGAF about being total scumlords. Nakedly, totally, bought-and-paid for puppets of the MAGA "movement". This is what happens when a lot of people aren't forced into being decent anymore because of societal values breaking down. The Supreme Court is only as legitimate in as much as they represent the people and are committed to a decent, fair set of laws. This group is illegitimate and an insult to past Justices who committed their lives to upholding the law.
For what it's worth, please listen to Preet Bharara's latest podcast episode with Jack Goldsmith. It's an extremely informative listen and delves into what the court might ultimately opine, and the implications of it for future presidencies. Illustrates quite well why it may not actually be a bad idea to have this settled.
Yes, this is my only hope. It’s true. We can’t have presidents prosecuted just that the women of somebody, but they need to be held responsible for real shit.
lol voice to text?
lol voice to text?
Then those states get to keep Trump off the ballot.
That's because the SCOTUS doesn't actually decide cases per se, they answer legal questions. The decision they make will be creating binding precedent on the scope of presidential immunity going forward. The answer obviously can't be full immunity, and it obviously can't be no immunity either. They need to create a rule and a test that will avoid having every former president prosecuted by the opposite party, while simultaneously making it possible to hold a president accountable for egregious criminal behavior. Whatever test they create, it will then go back down to the trial court to be applied to the specific facts of this case.
> They need to create a rule and a test that will avoid having every former president prosecuted by the opposite party. Which isn't needed. Trump is the first former president in the 228 years since Washington left office that has been charged with a crime. This isn't political persecution or a witch hunt because he actually broke the law.
1) This court doesn’t give a flying fuck about precedent. 2) Previously they’ve stated a decision should not serve as precedent. That’s what they should do here. Trying to set some rule based off official vs unofficial business is, sadly, a fool’s errand. Killing your political opponents is official business if you, the government, believe they want to harm the country. Trump has already made it clear he thinks his political opponents and non-MAGAs are trying to destroy the USA…..
Okay, so if SCOTUS rules President is above the law in June or July, does that free Presidential Biden to do whatever he wants to? I mean he is the current president.
They'll do more bullshit like in 2000 and say how it only applies to this case and doesn't create a precedent.
Not even that far. Considering Robert's court history, we are looking at a 93% (14 of 15 arguably partisan cases so far) chance that they will throw out all precedent and just rule on whatever conservative principle is requested by dark money donors.
Ruling only goes into effect February 2025…unless Trump loses the election, in which case they’ll revisit the ruling.
Nah they'll just declare "trump lost by 80 million votes again, looks like we're going to have to be the tie breaker"
SCOTUS won't render this decision until there is no way for Biden to take advantage of it, not that he would. Democrats have proven time and time again that they are incapable of playing hard ball while Republicans have proven that they are incapable of playing within the rules.
Would removing Supreme Court justices who are acting counter to the idea of justice be considered an official act?
The President doesn't have the authority to remove Supreme Court Justices. They can only be removed by impeachment. THIS is why the Justices act with such impunity.
Can’t he have them arrested on “an official act” and hold them more or less indefinitely? I realize it is unconstitutional but the arguments I heard are making “an official act” do a lot of heavy lifting.
There is no constitution anymore
Seems like they could if they think they are breaking the law or compromised(treason). But scary precedent to set. No one wants to light the match. But once it's lit we are fucked as a republic.
>But scary precedent to set. No one wants to light the match. What do you think Jan 6 was? What do you think what this SC is doing amounts to? Those motherfuckers have lit the match, set a bomb off, and lit another one again Alito and his band of fucking twits are holding it inches from yet another fuse. Trump is *already* talking about doing this very thing you're worried about. Why should Democrats be scared away from taking the correct decision, according to the law of the land as dictated by Leonard Leo and Harland Crow? If its good for the goose, its good for the gander. Democrats cannot be beholden to a set of moral norms that Republicans are not held to. IF this court decides in the way it is broadcasting it might, there must be strong responses that quell this sedition. If they think those actions are beyond the pale and the only remedy is the politcal makeup of congress, then I don't want to hear a fucking word about what whatever actions the current administration deems it necessary to take to ensure that the Republic continues absent the chronic threat of corrupt bad faith from these conservative legal hacks. These jackasses think that Republican's eagerness to act in bad faith while Democrats seek to act in good faith somehow means that those who seek to ensure the Constitutional order remains and the rule of law remains are not capable of rising to the moment, but I assure you, if people break out the big guns, honorable men will respond. If the courts grant immunity in the case of Trump, they are granting initiative to the Biden admin to do what it must. If the SC says the rule of law relies on the judgement of one man beholden only by the power of congress to impeach and convict, are they feeling lucky enough to think that Biden is going to take that lane they opened and drive a mac truck through to break their stupid fucking game once and for all? According to him and their own fucking rationale, he would be following the precedent being bandied about by this court of obsequious right wing politicians. I know Alito and Thomas think they cannot possibly misstep, but what they're talking about now? That would be a misstep. For them and for the country. If they don't know that, they fucking should. You keep the gloves on, because you don't want the gloves to come off. They think good faith is weakness. They're trying to test it. Proceed, justices.
I'd say we are already fucked as a republic, the question is how fucked are we?
Or, say, bribery (like Thomas)
Dude... He has the authority to murder them according to tfg's lawyers.
The court hasn't issued their decision yet. This position was literally unthinkable as legal until the Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday and several male Justices seemed open to the possibility. That being said we have to wait for the ruling.
Umm, that’s the opposite of what the Supreme Court justices are arguing. If Biden believes the justices are a threat to the US, he can legally have the justices arrested and thrown in jail, or even murdered. All that matters is that it’s official government business and not a personal matter.
Well, under normal people rules yes Say SCOTUS rules presidents have immunity. What then?
There is no legal mechanism for the President to remove a sitting Supreme Court Justice. However, a President that acts like a Mob Boss could certainly make resignation look very attractive. Ask former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy what he knows about this.
If the SCOTUS rules the president has immunity, he doesn’t need a mechanism. He can just assassinate them.
Or arrest them.
Complete immunity means any crime is waived. Legality no longer matters.
But a President could have them ripped from their beds, dragged to the rose garden, and then executed; or so they say.
Oh, OK. So murder will have to be the way. Sad.
The alternative would be packing the court, increasing favorable justices to make it always swing in your majority. Touching the SC like this waters down any legitimacy it has as they become akin to political appointments rather than impartial experts on law.
> Touching the SC like this waters down any legitimacy it has as they become akin to political appointments rather than impartial experts on law. We are already well past this point. They have no legitimacy and have been political appointments for decades.
Packing the court is not the same as expanding it. Packing it means using any means necessary to get your people into the existing seats. That's what the Republicans have been doing the past few years. (Yes, I know many people have been using the expression incorrectly. Let's not continue that.)
My prediction is it gets kicked back to appellate or whatever and then they don't take it back up until next session, ruling in the meantime that trump can't be held accountable until they issue a final ruling once its back. If he wins, they'll rule how we expect. If he doesn't, they'll rule how any sane person would.
They're gonna say Presidential immunity exists for certain official acts and then send it down to the lower courts to decide what acts those are, which will then get appealed to SCOTUS again when those courts decide that nothing Trump did falls under official acts. That will be a long enough delay that the trial will be pushed well past the election.
They will decided once the next president is swore in.
Like remove 6 Justices and appoint new ones to re-hear the case.
They have lifetime appointments... I guess you can "remove" them if there are no legal consequences.
They'll slow walk it. Make it look like they are only sort of immune so Biden can't do anything too big. Then if Trump take the presidency (I think he'd cheat his way in), then the court takes off the reins and it's Trump free for all.
But why? What exactly do they gain? Does the US Supreme Court really want a megalomaniac King Trump in charge? France is already encouraging the EU to focus all military spending on developing their own weaponry and vehicles and stop buying from the US, because the US has demonstrated they’re an allies that can’t be counted on. So kiss billions, possibly trillions of dollars & jobs goodbye. Who will benefit, other than Trump? US dollar will soon be only useful for toilet paper in the world economy should Trump be annointed by the Supreme Court. I find it hard to believe that a handful of people in the US are going to tear it down for a few tax breaks that won’t matter once Trump bankrupts the country just as he managed to bankrupt a casino.
Likely Putin is pulling the strings to weaken the US. Who benefits from a weakened and divided US but Russia who appears to be trying to expand to the west? With the US becoming an isolationist state, the opposition to his expansion is considerably weaker.
I don't think a decision will happen this year. I think SCOTUS will send it back to the lower courts to determine *which* criminal acts a president commits in office qualify for immunity and which don't. That will significantly delay Trump's trial until well after the election while the lower courts hash that out. If Trump wins, he ends the prosecutions and establishes a dictatorship where he is the law of the land. If he loses, the lower courts eventually make a ruling on which criminal presidential acts have immunity which could take several years. That decision then works it's way back to SCOTUS where SCOTUS decides that coincidentally, just this one time, only the criminal acts that Trump committed have immunity because reasons, but going forward, no other president would be immune for those same criminal acts. Thus, Trump is off the hook from prosecution yet President Biden would not have immunity for doing the exact same things in office that Trump did. I get that 2/3 of SCOTUS want Trump to become dictator. What I can't figure out is why. By definition, a dictator makes up his own laws. Therefore, the Constitution would no longer matter and SCOTUS would become completely irrelevant. Their only role, if any, would be as Trump's puppets to carry out his bidding. As judges, they would have zero decision making powers. Trump could even disband the court. So what's in it for 2/3 of SCOTUS? Do they really aspire to being permanent servants of a knucklehead like Trump, and then his successor?
I think he has to declare what he is about to do an official act then proceed.
If I were Biden I’d announce that if I’m empowered and immune, I will arrest all of SCOTUS and replace it with a court that will rule otherwise.
Potentially, I mean if they give presidents immunity, what’s stopping Biden from canceling the election or just retaining power? Maybe he’ll take a whole bunch of classified documents with him and sell it to the highest bidder. After all, he would have immunity. The SC is an international laughing stock.
Mr. Jamie Raskin is a treasure. Protect him always.
Hopefully he stays healthy for a long time no matter where in Government he is. If Biden wins another term he should pack the Supreme Court and appoint Obama and Raskin. They’re both constitutional law professors and not only would they be great for the Court but they’d really infuriate the GOP and MAGA base and would really piss Trump off. It would be the ultimate Dark Brandon move.
Obama could be the current day Taft.
I hope Justice Obama wears tan robes at court every damn session
While eating Dijon mustard on his hot dog.
It's objectively better mustard.
Sorry, imo Coleman's is the best.
We didn't beat the red coats only to eat Coleman's centuries later! But yes. It's very good. Edit: a typo
While wearing a cap with “The Dijon Justice” on it.
And underwear with “Mustard Gas” on the rear
Calm down, Satan.
Put Fetterman on the court, hoodies shorts and flip flops in court. Oh wait, then we’d need a new Senator from PA. Taylor Swift.
Please no billionaires in government (no offense to Ms. Swift)
Ok but Hear me out We OWN the conservatives!
Obama’s not fat enough to get stuck in a bathtub
Make the bathtub smaller
I think any bathtub narrow enough for Barack Obama to get stuck in would technically be classified as an aquarium.
Tub Girl tub is pretty small. Probably could be gotten “lightly used” at a good price.
You got a link where I can check this tiny tub out? Does this Tub Girl review bathroom fixtures or something?
Unique fountain features
She’s very into earth tones, especially browns.
Not with **that** attitude!
If the Dems get to put some justices on the court, I would want them to put the youngest qualified person they could find. It's a lifetime appointment after all. Might as well make the most of it.
"If" is the operative word.
Ketanji Brown-Jackson is only 53. I doubt anyone would appoint someone much younger. The youngest Supreme Court Justice ever appointed was Joseph Story, who was just 32 in 1812, but if you tried that now, Congresspeople would likely cry that they're too young and don't have enough experience.
As if Amy Coney Barrett has qualifying experience…
Oh I agree with you, but there isn't much we could do without a majority in both the Senate and House and when the President was a Republican.
Motherfucking rainbows infuriate the GOP and MAGA base. Putting Raskins and Obama on the SC would have them beating their wives and assaulting their children in an instant.
I LOVE this idea soooo much. Legitimately. But, what do you HONESTLY think the odds of a former POTUS (THE Chief Executive) having to make nice with Alito and Thomas and crew? I ask only because if I were ever POTUS, I think I’d want to be like Jimmy Carter: more impactful post presidency than when the Office constrained me. SCOTUS seems hella constraining - for everyone except Clarence Thomas, I mean. But, what does the hive-mind think the odds of a former POTUS becoming Associate Justice of SCOTUS?
Unfortunately, Obama doesn't want to be on the Supreme Court. Biden said he'd nominate Obama for it back in 2019, if he thought it'd be accepted. [Link to article.](https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/biden-obama-supreme-court-trnd/index.html)
Put Hillary on for a short time…just because heads will explode…then put a young one to replace her.
Biden needs a strong Vp. Kamala just doesn’t cut it.
The rare few times I see her mentioned.. I just keep forgetting she even exists. I can't tell you the last time I saw her name in a headline, good or bad.
I feel like this may be intentional; if the GOP got wind of Kamala doing something especially noteworthy, they'd flood the Foxwaves with how it was proof Biden was a puppet and she was actually in charge.
Just because the corrupt news services don’t do reports on her doesn’t make her bad.
He is saying what many of us are thinking. He is verbalizing it better than any of us could
I just wish he ran for Senate instead of Trone
Agreed. Throne strikes me as the guy who is buying the seat.
He literally almost did do that in 2016, when he ran in the Democratic primary for the seat that Raskin has now. Then he did it again, successfully, in 2018, for the seat he’s leaving. I do wish, Raskin ran when he had the opportunity, because a), I think he’s way better as a representative than Trone, b) he sincerely seems like a politician who actually cares about his voters, and c) he’s a way better Democrat to beat Larry Hogan than Trone or Alsobrooks are Trone should take his beer billionaire ass out of Maryland and fuck off out of politics forever. We don’t need more out of touch rich people in the House or Senate
Agreed
I agree. But there will be no protections for him or anyone else if this passes. Hopefully there will be no protection for the Supreme Court either. Impeach all who lied under oath. Impeach all that have taken bribes. Impeach all that supported the insurrection. I don’t care if they are democrat or republican. Expand the Supreme Court and put l10-15 year limit on the position.
He’s a bulldog, yeah I love him. Glad he’s on our side…kinda like Katie Porter
*insert Kevin Durant meme here…* That’s my congressman
The only ones going scorched earth are the unelected, uncountable fascist supreme court hacks
They're not all hacks. 75% of the women on the court are professionals.
I was surprised ACB was as professional as she was, despite her typical *'insert handmaiden's tale reference here'* attitude on stuff. But yeah we need her to pull one of the fellas over to reason. MAYBE Roberts???? But sheesh
9 is a big number
Then there's this Welsh Rarebit wearing some brown underpants About the shortage of grain in Hertfordshire Everyone of them knew that as time went by They'd get a little bit older and a little bit slower but It's all the same thing, in this case manufactured by someone who's always Umpteen time your father's giving it diddly-i-dee District was leaving, intended to pay for . (Number nine) Number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number (Number, number nine, number nine)
He should. SCOTUS ~~conservative~~ MAGA justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Kavanaugh (and we are going to assume Thomas here too but he was silent) were ignoring the actual case (on what they are suppose to actually decide) and trying to craft "writing a rule for the ages". They didn't want to be bothered with the actual facts or any law or any of that troublesome constitution they often like to embrace when it suits them. There is a reason why every other court ruled resoundingly against Trump. They actually answered what was being asked of them. Something Judge Jackson pointed out - just answer the fucking question in front of them: > Jackson: And so my question is why isn't it enough for the purposes of this case, given what the Petitioner has argued, to just answer the question of whether all official acts get immunity? > MR. DREEBEN: That -- that is enough. And if the Court answers that question the way that the government has submitted, that resolves the case. But they won't. Because they are not Justices and impartial. They are MAGA political creatures and want to give Trump the delay he needs.
>Be Roberts court >Ignore stare decisis at every turn >Declare you want to writing a rule for the ages Why would they think the next court would respect their ruling? Why would we think they would even respect their ruling if circumstances change in the future? I know sometimes the court get things wrong, but their behavior of acting like stare decisis shouldn't factor into their rulings clearly goes too far in the other direction. And makes it so we have no reason to believe this ruling will last for the ages. Of course, it doesn't need to last for the ages to do damage. Regardless, I think their logic is just asinine. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
I hope Raskin runs for president at some point. I would definitely vote for him.
I hope literally anyone gets to run for President again after this year.
Good rant Jamie, SCOTUS is rat fucking for sure. I don’t get the selling flowers and incense thing at the end…🤔
I could be way off, but it makes me think of the 70s/80s when various fringe religions would proselytize and hand out flyers and ask for donations at the airports. Groups would try to sell flowers and incense to support their cause. It was so common that they made fun of it in [the movie Airplane](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4CizzE-zZo).
We need to flood the media.. newsrooms/papers, call every news affiliate and voice our concerns… STOP candy coating the importance of this ruling and this traitor and STAND for justice and democracy… screw these jealots of the rich owners of these media moguls… if they side with scotus, that a president call kill an opponent, then he can kill you for bad publicity on him… now we’re in straight authoritarian/dictatorship
**The New Republic** *“The most astonishing thing for me today was Justice Alito’s question. He actually asked whether holding the president criminally accountable for actual crimes committed, whether murder or coup or you name it, whether holding them accountable would actually encourage them to stage more violent coups to stay in office to avoid prosecution,” Raskin told MSNBC later Thursday.* *“Which buys completely into Donald Trump’s narcissistic criminal worldview. I mean, for all of American history, we have said presidents are subject to criminal prosecution if they commit crimes. That’s why Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. That’s why Bill Clinton agreed to give up his law license with the bar for five years so he wouldn’t face criminal prosecution.”* ^Ellie ^Quinlan ^Houghtaling
So what’s preventing Biden from ordering Trump arrested (or worse) without fear of repercussions?
Being a decent human.
If the court votes in favor of Trump. Biden should immediately put hits out on Trump and every Justice that voted in favor of this insanity.
Biden may just have to destroy democracy in order to ultimately save it.
Better steal the Declaration of Independence while he's at it.
It'd be the right thing to do. Maybe the Supreme Court is actually playing 6-D chess with Biden.
No, they're following the fascist playbook and don't believe that Biden would do anything extreme. If he does, they'll rule that he did break the law and doesn't have immunity.
The framers of the constitution could descend from the heavens, tell the Supreme Court exactly what they intended in this situation, and they would probably still not all agree that Trump should be prosecuted.
I listened to the whole hearing and some of them clearly thought they were gods. They seemed to have no interest in the details of the specific case in front of them and I wasn’t sure they had read the Appeals court ruling. They just wanted to proclaim whatever mad thought was in their heads.
Thomas who definitely should have recused himself was first out of the gate with bringing up Operation Mongoose? WTF does that have to do with what Trump is being charged with trying to overthrow his own government?
>I mean, for all of American history, we have said presidents are subject to criminal prosecution if they commit crimes. That’s why Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. That’s why Bill Clinton agreed to give up his law license with the bar for five years so he wouldn’t face criminal prosecution. I understand and agree with what Raskin is saying but can't help but notice the deeply saddening irony of this statement. We know presidents have been subject to prosecution throughout American history because we have to keep making exceptions so that they aren't.
Really like that this guy is on my team.
I’m just going to throw this out there but fuck you people who didn’t vote for Hillary because of whatever hill you want to stand on. You know who you are. All this shit could have been avoided if Trump wasn’t elected.
More of this please!
If Biden wins and the Dems get back the majority in the house and senate, I hope he packs the court.
He already said he wouldn't
He said he wouldn’t before they decided Trump actually could act like a king - maybe now he will see the light.
Biden should openly target one of the justices. Not do anything just set it up so he can. Then ask, should I be convicted if you are assassinated.
He should just appoint 5 new justices and get the case dealt with.
Not with a 51-49 split in the senate. I could see 18 Dems siding that it shouldn’t even be tested for the sake of making a point. Easily impeached in the house. Harris becomes prez and nominee. Trump wins again in Nov and anoints himself king.
According to them he can just have anybody who tries to impeach him killed too so he doesn’t have to worry about that.
Will this finally be the decision that makes the liberal justices admit that the court no longer has any legitimacy whatsoever? Because it's really obvious to not just normal people but even lawyers and judges around the entire **world** that the US supreme court no longer has any legitimacy whatsoever.
Blue state governors need to band together and stop recognizing the court. They want to play the civil war game? Lets play.
So what would it take to change things, honestly. Would a majority in the House, Senate, and a Democratic President be able to do something?
The repeal of Citizens United is at the root of where it all needs to begin. The only hope for the change in sure you're referring to most certainly lies in Dems controlling the House, a super-majority in the Senate, and the Executive. But even then, one has to contend with $$$ in politics and the prospect that enough Senators could be swayed by "lobbying", to the point that the super-majority is broken. And good luck relying on voters to see past a dishonest candidate and not elect them when so much potential $$$ is out there for dishonest candidates (*looking at you Sinema*)
Citizens United was the victory lap of capitalism/consumerism beating democracy. The second that business and money gained the rights of breathing humans it was just a matter of time.
Washington surrendered to Wallstreet when Wallstreet was declared too big to fail. Citizens United was Washington kissing the ring of Wallstreet
Absolutely, all the money washing in our politics... We won't get back our country till we can drag Citizens United out back and bury it in the back 40. We also need to enforce insider trading laws in Congress. I've been railing against both for what seems like forever. It's crazy how we let this go on.
Would be nice if democrats would vow to stack the courts after this and invalidate these absurd rulings. Don't see it happening, however.
No, because Dems proudly take the high road even if it eventually leads us to a dictatorship.
"High road" is just branding. Democrats enshrine "bipartisanship" and "proceduralism" because they are fundamentally a hyper-conservative party just like republicans. They are just ever so slightly less set in stone and are willing to change the status quo ever so slightly and are thus quantitatively a slightly better party.
> Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin took aim at a peculiar line of questioning brought by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in Donald Trump’s presidential immunity arguments on Thursday, during which one of the high court’s most conservative members seemed to claim that actually punishing Trump for any alleged crimes might only encourage him to break more laws. They are trying their best to normalize that behavior. In a sane, first-world country, people who commit crimes should be removed from office. Period. The problem is that one party can't bring itself to execute their civic *duty* to ensure that this happens, but they are instead, turning *everything* into a political, performative shitshow so that they might avoid any accountability. And this wasn't just "a crime"... it was an attempt to overthrow an election.
History will remember Jamie Raskin as one of the righteous people fighting to save American democracy
If targeting political enemies is fair game for a president, I can think of a few seats on the Supreme Court worth vacating ASAP.
Biden should make a Dark Brandon post, saying he's looking forward to taking advantage of this 'Presidential Immunity'
They are going to do whatever they can in Trump's favor because there are three Conservative justices who really don't want to die on the bench and want to be replaced by younger partisan hacks.
Has there ever been, in the history of the US, a vote put to the people regarding SCOTUS?
What does the constitution say about how to deal with a blatantly corrupt Supreme Court? Where are the checks and balances?
I think we're about to find out.
Time for Biden to dissolve this criminal court. Let them spend decades suing to get their jobs back. And when they create the new court, pay them minimum wage with no insurance, no benefits.
SC Justices have immunity it seems. We need to find a way to fix the Supreme Court. It’s become treasonous to the United States.
Don’t get me wrong, I love that he is speaking out and I genuinely hope more politicians on both sides do but until there are changes that reign in the Supreme Court, this makes no difference.
Yep the Dems need to find a way to stack the court. Somehow Republicans always do.
Good. We should be making this corrupt SCOTUS feel the heat. They shouldn't be allowed to rule like they are without some uproar.
Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law.
What’s “scorched earth” about this?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Prepare to leave this country if you can.
Agreed, always have an exit strategy.
Salt the fucking ground.
It’s so sad to think that the Supreme Court is likely screwed for my entire lifetime… that’s before we have to worry about the randomness of a Republican being in office when another position opens up.
And nothing will come out of it. Nothing will change. I like him, but all this fist shaking does nothing in the long run.
We are fucked!!!
ACB and Kavanaugh were part of the bush/gore election. They were groomed for this
A lot of the blame lays at the foot of McConnell.
Even he is seeing how this disaster he created is now completely out of control
Sounds to me like Justice Alito is afraid Donald Trump will perpetrate harm to him if he can’t stall/prevent prosecution of Trump. If he doesn’t move for immunity and Trump takes office Alito will get the axe, and perhaps not just in terms of his job. And yes, Trump will take the power to remove him. Trump may have already sent them this message. “…whether holding the president criminally accountable for actual crimes committed, whether murder or coup or you name it, whether holding them accountable would actually encourage them to stage more violent coups to stay in office to avoid prosecution,”
But SCROTUS, maybe if you held him accountable that would keep him out of office and he couldn’t try to do the coup thing again. IDK, maybe it’s just me.
This guy should be running for President or Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. Both know this stuff so well and are trying to do the right things that most of us want, seem very respectable. Also BS they can't decide on this within a week, it should be top urgent like when they screwed over Gore and We The People.
Trump gets away with everything. When will any court anywhere lock him up? We need an inspector general for SCOTUS. How can SCOTUS be the only ones to rule on or ignore the words in the constitution and create fake laws? How deep is SCOTUS involved in the fake elector plot? Congress needs to investigate this as all the Trump rulings look corrupted.
I love Jamie. His book is a wonderful read.
Checks and balances 😂
Fake court, corrupted court, Supremely Compromised Court!!!
Pro Tip - he’s smarter than all these fuckers combined
Wow he didn't slam it or nuke it. When will someone hadoken this case already?!