BREAKING: The Supreme Court has sided with President Trump, ruling that presidents cannot be held cr

[Smokin Joe]

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1807793045322047819

He can order it, but the Team is under no obligation to perform illegal acts, even under orders.

[libertybele]

With last week's debate, and this SCOTUS decison.  Trump damned well better win this thing, or it's a bigger choke job than Hillary's '16 version of this shit show.

Keep praying for our Republic.

[Kamaji]

Pedo Joe needs to be celebrating.  This might be his ticket from '25 prosecution for ACTUAL crimes.

Yup.

[Kamaji]

iow, 3-3 but the three justices with illegal conflicts of interest (appointed by one of the parties to the suit) illegally refused to recuse.

Bullshit.  That is not the basis for recusal.

[Hoodat]

6-3 decision...

If Biden had been the one in the crosshairs instead of Trump, the decision would have been 9-0.  Six justices ruling according to the Constitution, and three ruling according to what is politically expedient.

[Hoodat]

iow, 3-3 but the three justices with illegal conflicts of interest (appointed by one of the parties to the suit) illegally refused to recuse.

Illegally?  How so?  What law was broken?

[mountaineer]

Jesse Kelly
@JesseKellyDC
You know what you call it when SCOTUS reveals the President has immunity and the first thought the communists have is about using the military to execute political opponents?
In poker, that’s known as a ‘tell’.
1:01 PM · Jul 1, 2024

Jesse Kelly
@JesseKellyDC
For instance, if you told me the President could do whatever he wanted without restriction, my very first thought would be about firing government employees and eliminating entire federal agencies.
For communists, their thoughts go directly to murder.
Again, a tell.
1:03 PM · Jul 1, 2024

[Bigun]

Jesse Kelly
@JesseKellyDC
You know what you call it when SCOTUS reveals the President has immunity and the first thought the communists have is about using the military to execute political opponents?
In poker, that’s known as a ‘tell’.
1:01 PM · Jul 1, 2024

Jesse Kelly
@JesseKellyDC
For instance, if you told me the President could do whatever he wanted without restriction, my very first thought would be about firing government employees and eliminating entire federal agencies.
For communists, their thoughts go directly to murder.
Again, a tell.
1:03 PM · Jul 1, 2024

 

[Bigun]

If you were listening to the Spaces earlier you already heard what I discovered earlier today.

I spent quite a bit of time analyzing the concurring opinion from Justice Thomas.

I noticed that if you started with the second paragraph, and took every tenth letter as they appeared in the words of the opinion, pulling them out and putting them in order on a separate page revealed the following:

"Hey Joe:

Remember my confirmation hearing in 1991?

I do.

Your friend,

Clarence"

https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1807976114796814513

[mystery-ak]

 

Dem Rep. Lofgren Decries SCOTUS Immunity Decision, Claims Biden ‘Could Dispatch the Military to Take Out the Conservative Justices’

On Monday on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) claimed President Joe Biden could use the Supreme Court decision affirming a degree of immunity for former and current presidents to remove conservative justices from the high court.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/07/01/dem-rep-lofgren-decries-scotus-immunity-decision-claims-biden-could-dispatch-the-military-to-take-out-the-conservative-justices/

[Bigun]

Dem Rep. Lofgren Decries SCOTUS Immunity Decision, Claims Biden ‘Could Dispatch the Military to Take Out the Conservative Justices’

On Monday on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) claimed President Joe Biden could use the Supreme Court decision affirming a degree of immunity for former and current presidents to remove conservative justices from the high court.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/07/01/dem-rep-lofgren-decries-scotus-immunity-decision-claims-biden-could-dispatch-the-military-to-take-out-the-conservative-justices/

Anybody read the "Wise Latina" dissent? Makes you wonder what lawschool she attended.

Mark R. Levin
@marklevinshow
SOTOMAYOR IS AN IDIOT AND MORE

Sotomayor proves yet again that she's a complete idiot. Let me help her and all the clowns in the media.  If a president orders the assassination of a political rival, that is not part of his official duties. He's not immune. Even more, the hysterical examples, which would require the involvement of scores or more conspirators, including civil servants and military, are so insane that none of this should be taken seriously.  The Democrat Party, including their jurists, are hellbent on destroying the institutions of this constitutional republic. They say Trump is Hitler, the majority justices are right-wing hacks, and Republicans who support Trump (or anyone else who stands in their way) are cultists, brain dead, white supremacists, etc. 

Garland and Smith are disfiguring the Constitution, and the Supreme Court, as well as Judge Cannon, are doing their best to set things straight and place things back in the constitutional box. It is Smith, a historically rogue and vile prosecutor, who deserves our contempt, along with his boss, Garland. The January 6 case is a farce. The documents case was utterly unnecessary.  He and the Democrats may be in a rush to destroy a constitution they have never admired, and whose authors they hate, in pursuit of their American-Marxist police-state. But the rest of us are not.

https://x.com/marklevinshow/status/1807892432068972746

[mountaineer]

Anybody read the "Wise Latina" dissent? Makes you wonder what lawschool she attended.

And this is why DEI is bad, m'kay.

[jmyrlefuller]

Illegally?  How so?  What law was broken?

You're telling me there's no law on the federal books prohibiting the courts from ruling on cases involving the people who appointed them to the office? Quid pro quo? No conflict of interest statutes?

If so, this whole country is illegitimate. Imagine—you're a President, you're doing tons of illegal stuff, AND you get to pack the court with cronies who will rule in your favor in exchange for the patronage! What a racket!

That alone would violate the RICO Act.

[jmyrlefuller]

If Biden had been the one in the crosshairs instead of Trump, the decision would have been 9-0.  Six justices ruling according to the Constitution, and three ruling according to what is politically expedient.

Ah, yes, a blatantly partisan ruling, but only the Democrats were partisans, those Republican nominees ruled in the interest of truth, justice, the American Way and the God Emperor Trump.

[Hoodat]

You're telling me there's no law on the federal books prohibiting the courts from ruling on cases involving the people who appointed them to the office?

Are you saying that there is?  Again, what law was broken?

[jmyrlefuller]

Are you saying that there is?  Again, what law was broken?

I told you, RICO.

[Hoodat]

Ah, yes, a blatantly partisan ruling, but only the Democrats were partisans, those Republican nominees ruled in the interest of truth, justice, the American Way and the God Emperor Trump.

I take it that you didn't bother to read the opinions yourself, but defauled to emotion instead.

[Smokin Joe]

IIRC, the SCOTUS was supposed to side only with the Constitution.

Not a Political Party.

Not an individual.

Accusations of anything else indicate that somehow partisan expectations are trying to creep into the process and the institution, and hearing where those accusations are originating, and their track record for projection, something is off track.

[Hoodat]

I told you, RICO.

OK, let's see it.  How are the four Justices guilty of violating the RICO statute?  Make your case.

[jmyrlefuller]

OK, let's see it.  How are the four Justices guilty of violating the RICO statute?  Make your case.

By accepting a Supreme Court appointment and then hearing a case involving the appointer as a defendant, then voting in said defendant's favor. Pattern of behavior. Justices owe their seats to the defendant. Defendant had a reason for choosing those three judges.

Imagine a President Maranzano appointed judges Luciano, Gambino and Bonanno to a federal court, one that handles organized crime. Then, Maranzano is arrested for mafia activity while out of office. Luciano, Gambino, and Bonanno vote to acquit, overwhelming the other votes and letting Maranzano walk.

Other than the names, that's exactly what happened.

[Hoodat]

By accepting a Supreme Court appointment and then hearing a case involving the appointer as a defendant, then voting in said defendant's favor. Pattern of behavior. Justices owe their seats to the defendant. Defendant had a reason for choosing those three judges.

Imagine a President Maranzano appointed judges Luciano, Gambino and Bonanno to a federal court, one that handles organized crime. Then, Maranzano is arrested for mafia activity while out of office. Luciano, Gambino, and Bonanno vote to acquit, overwhelming the other votes and letting Maranzano walk.

Other than the names, that's exactly what happened.

That's beautiful and all.  But not a word of that anything to do with RICO.  Again, what law did these four Justices violate?

[Kamaji]

By accepting a Supreme Court appointment and then hearing a case involving the appointer as a defendant, then voting in said defendant's favor. Pattern of behavior. Justices owe their seats to the defendant. Defendant had a reason for choosing those three judges.

Imagine a President Maranzano appointed judges Luciano, Gambino and Bonanno to a federal court, one that handles organized crime. Then, Maranzano is arrested for mafia activity while out of office. Luciano, Gambino, and Bonanno vote to acquit, overwhelming the other votes and letting Maranzano walk.

Other than the names, that's exactly what happened.

Bullshit.  Pure.  Unadulterated.  Bullshit.

[Bigun]

Bullshit.  Pure.  Unadulterated.  Bullshit.

 

[berdie]

By accepting a Supreme Court appointment and then hearing a case involving the appointer as a defendant, then voting in said defendant's favor. Pattern of behavior. Justices owe their seats to the defendant. Defendant had a reason for choosing those three judges.

Imagine a President Maranzano appointed judges Luciano, Gambino and Bonanno to a federal court, one that handles organized crime. Then, Maranzano is arrested for mafia activity while out of office. Luciano, Gambino, and Bonanno vote to acquit, overwhelming the other votes and letting Maranzano walk.

Other than the names, that's exactly what happened.




Since this is the first time that a president has been in this position I don't see that there is a precedent.

Most Justices pass rulings that reflect the political positions of the appointee. It shouldn't be that way...but it is.

[roamer_1]

Let's settle this between us... Is there at least an inferred immunity built into the Constitution?

I would say yes, wrt official actions. If he is operating in good faith to fulfill the operation of the office of president, he is acting as an agent of the United States. The US corporately picks up that bill, to include any liability.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Let's settle this between us... Is there at least an inferred immunity built into the Constitution?

I would say yes, wrt official actions. If he is operating in good faith to fulfill the operation of the office of president, he is acting as an agent of the United States. The US corporately picks up that bill, to include any liability.

If there isn't that means that a DA can haul a President on whatever charges he wants, and all it will take is 12 to convict him. After a grand jury too I guess. For nearly any act a President can take could probably be construed as criminal by somebody.

I dunno, maybe i don't have the legal background to argue about this.

[roamer_1]

If there isn't that means that a DA can haul a President on whatever charges he wants, and all it will take is 12 to convict him. After a grand jury too I guess. For nearly any act a President can take could probably be construed as criminal by somebody.

I dunno, maybe i don't have the legal background to argue about this.

Me neither. IANAL. But what you say makes sense.

[GtHawk]

That's beautiful and all.  But not a word of that anything to do with RICO.  Again, what law did these four Justices violate?

Hmmm, couldn't the same argument then be used against justices appointed by Barry and Brandon that ruled against Trump?

[roamer_1]

In the end, what matters is that it's the right call - Which I think is true.
If it's the right call, then political associations and/or ramifications are rendered moot - As is proper.

[Sighlass]

By accepting a Supreme Court appointment and then hearing a case involving the appointer as a defendant, then voting in said defendant's favor. Pattern of behavior. Justices owe their seats to the defendant. Defendant had a reason for choosing those three judges.

Imagine a President Maranzano appointed judges Luciano, Gambino and Bonanno to a federal court, one that handles organized crime. Then, Maranzano is arrested for mafia activity while out of office. Luciano, Gambino, and Bonanno vote to acquit, overwhelming the other votes and letting Maranzano walk.

Other than the names, that's exactly what happened.

Understand where you are coming from @jmyrlefuller ... But someone had to judge in matters such as this... and the vetting process of the SCOTUS is suppose to have the highest vetting (we no longer see that)... We had Ginsburg voting on Gay Marriage when she (and others) had performed the ceremonies. Perhaps then she (both shes) should of stepped down in judgement, but being the last court to have say so in Presidential matters, I really don't see where they could recuse themselves and not leave right the opposite left to judge (pun not intended). At some point you have to say this is the best we can humanly do.

[Kamaji]

There are only very limited grounds in which a judge can be required to recuse him/her self, and neither includes the fact that one of the parties coincidentally happens to be the president who appointed that judge.  See, e.g., Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-22.ZS.html#content

[MeganC]

This was a big win for Trump @MeganC ---- he brought the lawsuit (the plaintiff)

I agree with that too!!!

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!