US politics: Trumpenslammer

[Week]

5 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

Are you familiar with this court ignoring prior cases and precedence, taking cases that are entirely hypothetical and deciding many things on the shadow docket?

Roberts doesn't have full say though. All they need is 4 justices. 

Really, scot, you need to stop looking at what was normal and instead start looking at what is possible if they have the will to do it.

It's far more likely that Scotus shields Trump from accountability for <reasons> rather than re-enshrine him as president based on complete and utter fabricated reasons in the face of a free and fair election.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Trusting this SC to act ethically is some straight Lucy holding the football shit. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Trusting this SC to act ethically is some straight Lucy holding the football shit. 

How did Trump do at the SCOTUS in 2020-2021 regarding the election?  How did the “Independent State Legislature” doctrine do? 

Edited August 4, 2023 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How did Trump do at the SCOTUS in 2020-2021 regarding the election?  How did the “Independent State Legislature” doctrine do? 

Broken clocks can still get the time right. We know that two of the Justices are nakedly corrupt and three lied during their confirmation hearings. It wouldn't surprise me if they were all accepting private gifts including from parties with cases being heard by the Court. These are not ethical people. It hurts to hear, but face reality. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Broken clocks can still get the time right. We know that two of the Justices are nakedly corrupt and three lied during their confirmation hearings. It wouldn't surprise me if they were all accepting private gifts including from parties with cases being heard by the Court. These are not ethical people. It hurts to hear, but face reality. 

Broken clock hit the right time in at last four seperate cases?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Broken clock hit the right time in at last four seperate cases?

The nakedly partisan moves don't come out in all cases, just certain pet ones. I can't say for sure that clearing Trump would be one of those cases, but I can't say it's not.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The nakedly partisan moves don't come out in all cases, just certain pet ones. I can't say for sure that clearing Trump would be one of those cases, but I can't say it's not.

If that is the case why isn’t Trump President right now?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If that is the case why isn’t Trump President right now?

Because they decided not to do it at that point. 

Keep in mind that them deciding that he should be president and he should be shielded from any criminal accountability are two very separate questions. More importantly, do you think that this court would be in favor of restricting Biden's power or the DoJ's power? Because that'd ultimately be the question that matters.

But more to the point you're not arguing any more whether or not it can be done; you're arguing that this particular court won't do it. My point was that regardless of prior choices this court could do it. And it is not an unreasonable thing for Trump to try and get them to do it, because why the fuck not? 

It also likely signals how Trump would decide to get justices in the future, in the same way that other authoritarians have subverted the legal wing by putting in their cronies. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If that is the case why isn’t Trump President right now?

Like I said, we can't deal in certainties with this court. And it's their unreliable nature that makes it all the more unnerving.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Like I said, we can't deal in certainties with this court. And it's their unreliable nature that makes it all the more unnerving.

I hate to say this but this would be true of any court regardless of its make up if it decided to act ignoring the Constitutional limits on its power… right?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I hate to say this but this would be true of any court regardless of its make up if it decided to act ignoring the Constitutional limits on its power… right?

On some level, sure. But never before has a court in power shown such open contempt for consistency from ruling to ruling, for precedent, for stare decisis, for ethics regulation, for their fellow justices who dissent, and for the Americans who have values different from them.

Well, the contempt is open for Alito and Thomas. We have to read the tea leaves of more underhanded performers like Roberts and Kavanagh, who do care about appearances (which is better than nothing I guess), but offer bad faith arguments when it suits them, with a patina of respectability, of course.

To be clear, I'm not saying we should defy them at this point. We need to make it clear that they most Americans have serious concerns about their judgment, and that our faith in them depends on their actions going forward, especially for cases as consequential as this one. And yet, regardless of what we may urge them to do, there's a much bigger risk of them going rogue than any other court in history.  

 

[Zorral]

27 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

as consequential as this one.

'This one' does not exist!

And if we are not to 'defy' them now, when are we to expect to given permission to do so?

You are clearly and honestly concerned about these SCOTUS matters, as are we all, but this screed is fuzzy and non-specific and entirely hypothetical about what has not happened, so it's not useful -- if that  declaration itself makes sense?  I'm not always that clear either.

Edited August 4, 2023 by Zorral

[Phylum of Alexandria]

Just now, Zorral said:

'This one' does not exist!

It's hypothetical at this point. I'm just saying it could get there, and the unthinkable is probably, for them, at least a little bit thinkable. Not trying to scare people, just pointing out the reality of their questionable judgment and loyalty, should such a decision come to them.

[Zorral]

The judge in the MAL dox trial; she is too inexperienced, not up to the scope of the MAL trial.

Trump Documents Case Judge Made Multiple Errors In Earlier Trial
One of U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's errors violated a fundamental constitutional right of the defendant.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/judge-aileen-cannon-errors_n_64cd0d3ee4b01638f323653e

 

[Zorral]

You know if this dingbat jerkwaddie who provoked a massive violent crowd action gets arrested, why not defendant?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/us/kai-cenat-union-square-nyc-crowds/index.html

The helicopters were nutz, which was my first clue something was going on.

[Zorral]

Didn't take long for him to disobey the judge's instructions.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/deadly-risks-trump-s-latest-truth-social-threat-raises-red-flags-for-legal-experts/ar-AA1eO7zv?

Quote

 

onald Trump on Friday said he was "coming after" those who have gone after him, prompting legal experts to suggest he might be breaking the rules set forth in the Washington, D.C., criminal case in which he's charged with attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump's threat was simple: "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!"

It caused an uproar among legal analysts and media alike.

Andrew Feinberg, White House Correspondent for the Independent, specifically said it sounded like the type of threat which would concern his judges.

"This certainly sounds like a threat against prosecutors and/or witnesses," he wrote.

y
Donald Trump on Friday said he was "coming after" those who have gone after him, prompting legal experts to suggest he might be breaking the rules set forth in the Washington, D.C., criminal case in which he's charged with attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump's threat was simple: "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!"

It caused an uproar among legal analysts and media alike.

Andrew Feinberg, White House Correspondent for the Independent, specifically said it sounded like the type of threat which would concern his judges.

"This certainly sounds like a threat against prosecutors and/or witnesses," he wrote.

National security attorney Bradley Moss also chimed in.

"Pre-sentencing report, Exhibit #4,288," Moss wrote upon sharing the post from Trump.

The New York Times writer Maggie Haberman simply wrote, "Make 2024 2020 Again."

Former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann also mentioned the threat: "This is the kind of thing that DOJ alerts the court to with respect to any defendant out on bail (in this case, in 3 criminal cases, and also is a threat in civil cases like E Jean Carroll)," he wrote. "Not addressing this will only cause it to metastasize with undue deadly risks.

 

 

[Week]

Ron Desantis' secret weapon, Casey. 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Eastman claims the failed 2021 autogolpe attempt was justified because he says “the left is bad” and “the Founders did that with the ‘Declaration of Independence’”…

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/eastman-reiterates-support-for-full-insurrection

Edited August 5, 2023 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

44 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Eastman claims the failed 2021 autogolpe attempt was justified because he says “the left is bad” and “the Founders did thag with the ‘Declaration of Independence’”…

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/eastman-reiterates-support-for-full-insurrection

And that's the easiest way to breakdown our current political problems. Republicans basic pitch is the left is bad and we also need to cut taxes because why pay for anything with a side of fuck the environment and screw civil and voting rights. If you still vote for Republicans, you're a lost soul at this point. 

[Martell Spy]

Special counsel cites Truth Social post in arguing for quick court order on evidence sharing as Trump rails against 2020 election charges

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/politics/trump-truth-social-smith-evidence-2020/index.html

Quote

 

Special counsel Jack Smith asked a judge to quickly set limits on what Donald Trump’s team can do with the evidence that will be shared with them in the election subversion case against the former president.

In a Friday night court filing, prosecutors pointed to a Trump Truth Social post from earlier in the day to argue that the former president has a habit of speaking publicly about the details of the various legal proceedings he’s facing.

The disclosure rules they have proposed, they said, are “particularly important in this case because the defendant has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him.”