![](_gb_images/_gb_sitenav_spacer.gif) |
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Trump Indicted (AGAIN) (Page 2)
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Administrator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_admin.png)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Trump is indicted in Georgia.
Indictment (PDF - 98 pages)
Annotated Indictment (CNN)
41 counts (13 against Trump). 19 defendants (Trump + 18 others). They have until August 25 to turn themselves in. I'm still reading.
According to CNN, Trump now faces 91 felony counts in 4 cases, across 4 different jurisdictions. Two of them state jurisdictions (New York, Georgia). Even if so inclined, a future POTUS cannot pardon state crimes.
(
Last edited by reader50; Aug 15, 2023 at 10:10 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Online
|
|
Quite the read. Georgia’s own RICO statute is in play here, which requires at least five years be served before parole can even be considered. Interestingly, in Georgia the governor cannot issue a pardon. That’s exclusively the purview of the state parole board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Online
|
|
I’m kind of shocked the indictment lists the grand jury members by name. Those poor people are in for a rough time of it, I fear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Milwaukee
Status:
Offline
|
|
Trump has already perpetrated actual witness intimidation against someone in the Georgia case. He's already on thin ice with the judge in DC. The question is, which jurisdiction will move first to hold him accountable for his tantrums?
|
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Administrator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_admin.png)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Thorzdad
I’m kind of shocked the indictment lists the grand jury members by name. Those poor people are in for a rough time of it, I fear.
I saw that as well. Also, on Page 20, "Act 3" is listed as "Act 2" - a typo that shouldn't have slipped into a court filing. Hopefully their case management will be tighter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Online
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Online
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status:
Offline
|
|
Maybe that's what his drivers license says from 50 years ago, LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
That’s what the receipt is for; that’s what he gets to take with him when he leaves jail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Online
|
|
He’d weigh more if he had bigger hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Finally hearing some chatter about section 3 of the 14th amendment to bar him from ever holding office again. Which seems like it would be entirely appropriate.Wonder if SCOTUS will do the right thing on that one. Strangely, I have a feeling they actually might.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Milwaukee
Status:
Offline
|
|
On this side of the pond, that's been filtering through for at least a couple of months, with concrete actions taking place in the last couple of weeks or so. The cases might all take a back seat to SC. I wouldn't be shocked by any ruling. It could go either way…
|
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
After the GOP loaded the SC I assumed they would in an egregiously partisan fashion at every turn but they have surprised me once or twice. Its hard to see how they could justify not blocking Trump under the law, though they will definitely not want to block him because I don't see any other Republican winning an election.
I wouldn't see Trump winning one either if Biden didn't genuinely seem to be going mentally downhill fairly fast. I assumed it was just Fox News nonsense at first but he does look frail and does say some odd things. The Dems should really be finding a good replacement ASAP.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Milwaukee
Status:
Offline
|
|
Biden has been making misstatements for decades. Perhaps he does it more often than he used to, but he also has a bigger megaphone. He seems to embellish things in his past, and apparently he genuinely believes his memory to be accurate. It would be better to acknowledge that he doesn't remember details about things that happened years ago.
|
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Online
|
|
Reminder we don’t have President Franken right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](stars/star_5_hbar_blue.png)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
@Waragainstsleep
The thing with (quasi-)octogenarians is that their health can decline precipitously after e. g. a sudden fall. Have a look at what happened to Mitch McConnell, he was super sharp and on point until he wasn't. Trump always has been unhinged for a while, and I struggle picking up on the differences between him bsing and not being on top of things mentally. It is true, though, that he seems to lack the energy and fire he has had.
Originally Posted by Gregg
Biden has been making misstatements for decades. Perhaps he does it more often than he used to, but he also has a bigger megaphone. He seems to embellish things in his past, and apparently he genuinely believes his memory to be accurate. It would be better to acknowledge that he doesn't remember details about things that happened years ago.
What is the relevance here?
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
I always feel like presidential elections are at significantly a popularity (or familiarity) contest. Trump only won because he was utterly dominating every second of the news cycle on both sides of the isle. IMO.
If Biden needs to be replaced, I think they need to do it sooner rather than later to give everyone a chance to get to know the replacement. Harris has been fairly anonymous since Biden was elected and I do worry that racism and misogyny would play a part as well if she were top of the ticket. So if not her, then who is next in line as the democrat candidate? AOC might have the next highest profile (from an international perspective) but I sense she doesn't feel ready to pull that trigger yet. If its something she even wants at all.
Obviously Harris takes charge if Biden quits sooner, but not who replaces Biden for the next election?
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
Obviously Harris takes charge if Biden quits sooner, but not who replaces Biden for the next election?
There really isn’t anyone in a position to replace him right now. The headcount in both the senate and house is too close to allow anyone from that crowd to replace him. Harris is capable of doing the job, but you’re right, sadly, about the wave of bigotry and misogyny that will follow.
Biden has never in his entire career been a solid speechifier. I think it has a lot to do with his learning to control, and cover for, his stutter.
Let’s not forget that Trump is relatively close in age to Biden and is far more obviously challenged, both physically and mentally. I mean, if Biden were to wander off-topic and simply start ranting the way Trump does all the time, it would be screaming headlines all through the right-wing media. But, no, Trump’s insanity is a beloved thing.
The ginned-up pearl-clutching over Biden’s age is being used as an election tactic against him. Honestly, what people need to focus on on what a second Trump administration will be like, and what the long-term effects of it will be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Reminder we don’t have President Franken right now.
That’s still depressing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Let Biden run, and win. IF he wins.
If the country doesn’t descend into civil war, he can retire for health reasons (sooner rather than later), and Harris is president.
Then see how she does.
The United States needs an AOC for president just to restore some of the basic premises of 20th-century social development and get out of the right-wing downward spiral into which the conservatives (D) and reactionaries/fascists (GOP) have locked the country, but she’s too young, and the time isn’t ripe yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Milwaukee
Status:
Offline
|
|
There has been some preliminary action in the cases against Trump. None have been favorable to him. Looks like the same pattern as in the post-election suits he brought. I don't know about his all-time record, but lately, Trump does not win in court.
|
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](stars/star_5_hbar_blue.png)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Thorzdad
There really isn’t anyone in a position to replace him right now. The headcount in both the senate and house is too close to allow anyone from that crowd to replace him. Harris is capable of doing the job, but you’re right, sadly, about the wave of bigotry and misogyny that will follow.
While I agree, it (unfortunately) is true that VP Harris does not have the pull and she couldn't use the Vice Presidency to establish herself in the role.
Originally Posted by Thorzdad
Biden has never in his entire career been a solid speechifier. I think it has a lot to do with his learning to control, and cover for, his stutter.
What suprised me with Biden was his legislative accomplishments, which should serve as a reminder that being a good orator is one thing, but that isn't the same as getting shit done.
Originally Posted by Thorzdad
The ginned-up pearl-clutching over Biden’s age is being used as an election tactic against him. Honestly, what people need to focus on on what a second Trump administration will be like, and what the long-term effects of it will be.
The one-sidedness is just the same as the obsession with the purported “Biden crime family”, yet ignoring the far more egregious problems of the Trump family.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](stars/star_5_hbar_blue.png)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Gregg
There has been some preliminary action in the cases against Trump. None have been favorable to him. Looks like the same pattern as in the post-election suits he brought. I don't know about his all-time record, but lately, Trump does not win in court.
I think in his previous life, Trump was used to dealing with civil lawsuits where in the worst case you can make the problem go away by paying money. That doesn't work with criminal cases, especially when you keep on obstructing the case and/or go against at least the spirit of court orders.
Plus, Trump has furnished really clear evidence in many of these cases, e. g. the infamous Raffensperger call.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status:
Offline
|
|
Where does the law stand when you own the Supreme Court?
|
Chris. T.
"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Administrator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_admin.png)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
SCOTUS is loaded with conservative shills, but they don't seem to obey Trump specifically. They made numerous calls against Trump on his no-evidence 2020 election lawsuits, for example. I'm cautiously hopeful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Milwaukee
Status:
Offline
|
|
Here's the biggest mistake Trump ever made: he ran for President of the United States.
He would still be getting away with fraud and not facing prison otherwise.
|
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by reader50
SCOTUS is loaded with conservative shills
What’s the difference between a conservative justice and a conservative shill justice? Are there liberal shill justices?
Where did Scalia fit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Gregg
Here's the biggest mistake Trump ever made: he ran for President of the United States.
He would still be getting away with fraud and not facing prison otherwise.
I dunno. The New York case might still have played out the way it has so far (DJT has been held liable for extensive business fraud, and the Tr*mps — Donald J, Eric, and DT Jr. — just got a number of business licenses revoked). We just wouldn't be reading about it. Definitely not over here in Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Administrator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_admin.png)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
What’s the difference between a conservative justice and a conservative shill justice? Are there liberal shill justices?
Where did Scalia fit?
Roberts is a non-shill conservative. He values long-standing court precedence, and won't overturn one just because it's politically convenient. He needs a really good law reason. ie - DC vs Heller (2008) where the 2nd Amendment was recognized as an individual right. This decision happened after legal scholars had almost all decided it really was an individual right.
Thomas is a shill conservative. He'll vote for conservative positions without regard to precedence, while accepting his personal-life bribes benefits from appreciative conservative donors.
I haven't followed the others closely enough. But my feeling is all those who voted down Roe are suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by reader50
my feeling is all those who voted down Roe are suspect.
I hate the kind of argument I’m about to make, but I’m pressed for time.
Roberts’ opinion on that vote is he concurred in judgement with the opinion of these suspect judges.
Roughly speaking, this puts us somewhere between:
1) Roberts is suspect by way of concurring with suspect judgement.
2) The judgement isn’t as suspect as it’s being made out to be.
I think it’s closer to number two.
I’m not saying I’m right, but like, I might be right, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Administrator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_admin.png)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
My impression is that "concurred in judgement" means Roberts buys into it personally. But he wouldn't have overturned a half century of settled law without more than his personal opinion. From what's leaked out since, he fought hard to maintain at least part of Roe.
Roberts is definitely conservative, but I'd call him a "professional". He holds his opinions separate from what's good for the law or country. And the professional side wins more often than not. I suppose that would count as a 3) on your list. It doesn't fit either of the first two.
Conservatives make up a significant part of the country. They should be represented on SCOTUS. But they're currently badly over-represented, and I'd rather have several Roberts instead of his current "bench". They shill conservative politics too often - though I've also been surprised here and there. Barrett hasn't gone off the rails as much as I'd feared, and Kavanaugh helped strike down Alabama's racial gerrymander instead of hollowing out yet more of the Voting Rights Act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status:
Offline
|
|
I am used to the law being independent of political persuasion, so it is odd for me to see a defence of the top legal body in a country being deliberately - and acceptedly - representative of only one part of the population, rather than all of the population.
In my view any "Supreme Court" should be applying the law as it stands, not interpreting the law to benefit their political beliefs. But I guess like all genies, this one won't go back in the bottle.
|
Chris. T.
"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by christ
I am used to the law being independent of political persuasion, so it is odd for me to see a defence of the top legal body in a country being deliberately - and acceptedly - representative of only one part of the population, rather than all of the population.
In my view any "Supreme Court" should be applying the law as it stands, not interpreting the law to benefit their political beliefs. But I guess like all genies, this one won't go back in the bottle.
As I understand it there are different legal traditions.
There is the extremely formal version, where everything is intended exactly as written, and imprecision in the law results in acquittal and a note to the legislative that it needs to be fixed. Germany tends to mostly follow this line — which resulted in acquittal for a guy some decades ago when a new law was drawn up that, while not actually legalising marijuana possession, turned possession of "insignificant amounts" ("geringfügige Menge") from a crime into a misdemeanor.
Which immediately led to a court acquitting a dealer for possession of several kilograms, since the "insignificance" threshold hadn't actually been defined. Which it then was, soon after.
Then there is the law that is mostly executed by way of "the spirit of the law" and precedence, which, I gather, is the basis for much of American law. This is always up for interpretation as to what the law means (see the goddamn Second Amendment), as well as drawing from how it was interpreted by courts in the past.
From what I gather, most judicial systems are a combination of these, but lean rather heavily in one direction or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](stars/star_5_hbar_blue.png)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by reader50
My impression is that "concurred in judgement" means Roberts buys into it personally. But he wouldn't have overturned a half century of settled law without more than his personal opinion. From what's leaked out since, he fought hard to maintain at least part of Roe.
Roberts is definitely conservative, but I'd call him a "professional". He holds his opinions separate from what's good for the law or country. And the professional side wins more often than not. I suppose that would count as a 3) on your list. It doesn't fit either of the first two.
In my mind the issue isn’t just that SCOTUS is much more conservative than the population, the conservative side is a philosophical monoculture thanks to the Federalist Society. Part of the selection process was not just whether potential judges subscribed to a very particular judicial philosophy, but also how they would rule on specific issues. Abortion is one of them. Couples to lifetime tenure and you have a bad recipe that makes it hard to correct such things.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by christ
In my view any "Supreme Court" should be applying the law as it stands, not interpreting the law to benefit their political beliefs. But I guess like all genies, this one won't go back in the bottle.
SCOTUS doesn’t “apply the law.” SCOTUS judges if the law passes muster in relation to the constitution. It’s the part where they determine WTF the constitution means that we have problems with. Of course, interpreting the constitution is often highly dependent on one’s political/social bent, which is why we have nine justices instead of just one or two, the idea being that such an arrangement is more apt to even things out.
Unfortunately, we currently have a highly gerrymandered court, where a cadre of justices have made up their minds before they even hear an argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Milwaukee
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Thorzdad
Unfortunately, we currently have a highly gerrymandered court, where a cadre of justices have made up their minds before they even hear an argument.
Well, wouldn't you say that's what we had for many, many years after FDR? So, it's not just "currently". It's more like that's the way it's always been in my lifetime.
|
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Online
|
|
No. Not at all. One could easily argue that the court before FDR was extremely partisan in favor of corporations, the wealthy, and whites in general. Court decisions post-FDR can largely be seen as expanding rights and liberties to all. This very recent court has made a raft of decisions aimed at walking back those expansions, and are very much in-keeping with the aims of the various conservative thinktanks the justices are aligned with, especially the Federalist Society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](stars/star_5_hbar_blue.png)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Gregg
Well, wouldn't you say that's what we had for many, many years after FDR? So, it's not just "currently". It's more like that's the way it's always been in my lifetime.
What happened during FDR is that SCOTUS was out of sync with a generational political shift, which led to the New Deal legislation. As far as I understand, there were long periods where there was much more fluidity. E. g. a lot of Republicans were upset that “their” judges in their mind were much more “liberal” than they wanted (judged by mostly outcomes). Put another way, you had much more ideological diversity on the court. One reaction was that justices nominated by conservative (Republican) presidents had to be vetted by the Federalist Society.
I think one way to interpret the current situation is similar to the time of the New Deal or the time around Reagan's first election as President: a shift in the zeitgeist of the population. You can see that the Republican Party is out of sync with the electorate: even in conservative states races or votes (on state constitutional amendments or ballet measures) that were related to e. g. abortion did not go the GOP's way, consistently so.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Thorzdad
SCOTUS doesn’t “apply the law.”
Originally Posted by https://www.supremecourt.gov/
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" - These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution
(My emphasis added)
SCOTUS applies the law. SCOTUS also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
It is not either or, it does both.
In my view politically partisan courts (supreme or otherwise) do not - and don't attempt to - provide equal justice under law.
|
Chris. T.
"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Online
|
|
If the law tells equal justice to fuck off…
Liberal Supreme Court Justices tell the law to fuck off.
Conservative Supreme Court Justices tell equal justice to fuck off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
If the law tells equal justice to fuck off…
Liberal Supreme Court Justices tell the law to fuck off.
Conservative Supreme Court Justices tell equal justice to fuck off.
Elegantly put.
|
Chris. T.
"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Online
|
|
Thank you. ![Smilie](http://forums.macnn.com/images/smilies/oldschool/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Online
|
|
Both Sidney Powell and Ken Chesebro flipped on Trump in the Georgia case this week. Gonna be a bad weekend at Mar a Lago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status:
Offline
|
|
predictably, trump now claiming powell was never his lawyer. despite the tweet welcoming her to the legal team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Administrator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_admin.png)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
For anyone who missed the headlines on every news site today, Trump was just convicted by the jury in the NY Hush Money case. 34 felony counts, all guilty. Sentencing is scheduled for July 11, followed by appeals. I don't expect any jail time before 2025.
Other criminal cases:
• Mar-a-Lago secret documents case: stalled by a Trump-friendly judge. No obvious date to proceed.
• DC election interference case: stalled by SCOTUS reviewing the DC Circuit's ruling on Presidential Immunity. Ruling probably coming in June. SCOTUS is expected to agree with the DC Circuit, but the unneeded review helps stall Trump's case, possibly long enough to postpone it past the 2024 Election.
• Georgia election interference case: Trump charges stalled by SCOTUS review on Presidential Immunity. Charges against the other defendants are not stalled. Though fights are happening over trying to dismiss DA Willis, this does not prevent the case from advancing.
Other civil cases:
• Lawsuit from endangered Capitol Police: haven't heard an update. Probably stalled by the SCOTUS Presidential Immunity review.
• Defamation lawsuit from E Jean Carroll: $83M verdict under appeal. Trump posted bond to cover the appeal.
• Earlier defamation lawsuit from E Jean Carroll: $10M verdict under appeal. Trump posted bond to cover the appeal.
• Trump.org lawsuit (financial fraud): ~$450M verdict under appeal. Trump allowed to post reduced bond, but that bond is being contested.
• Earlier Trump.org lawsuit (tax & securities fraud): verdict under appeal.
• 14th Amendment lawsuit to exclude Trump from Colorado and Maine ballots: SCOTUS did not contest Trump is an insurrectionist, but ruled 14th requires Congress to pass enabling legislation before the term can be applied. Don't hold your breath. So Trump remains on both state ballots. And even a Constitutional Amendment is toothless if Congress simply ignores it. Makes total sense.
(
Last edited by reader50; May 31, 2024 at 01:36 PM.
Reason: defamation, not libel)
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Online
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Guy Who Advocated Violent Overthrow of Elected Government is Supported by Terrorists.
Quel Surprise!
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Some are saying he won't get a custodial sentence, some are saying he will.
I think it would be funny if he got short jail time followed by probation and the judge insisted he serve it while waiting on appeal (I doubt he would, but I would love to see it).
Say 45 days inside, he'd be out before election day so there would almost be no point appealing it because the appeal wouldn't happen in time before the sentence was done.
I think America needs to see him perp-walked in an orange jumpsuit. For its own good. I think those folks who said they won't vote for a convicted felon won't see him as one unless he goes to jail. Even if its just for a week.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status:
Offline
|
|
Guy who said female opponent should be convicted and that would disqualify her from presidency somehow confident he can be president despite 34 convictions
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](stars/star_5_hbar_blue.png)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
Some are saying he won't get a custodial sentence, some are saying he will.
My understanding is that we shouldn't expect him to get a custodial sentence. But what if Trump gets found guilty in the classified documents case or one of the other criminal cases? Then he would be a convicted felon and his sentence should be harsher (according to sentencing guidelines). I don't know whether he should expect a prison sentence for deliberately hiding classified documents after being told to return them several times. Trump's prior convictions will compound.
The really bad thing for Trump in Florida is that the Floridian judge is ruling very much in Trump's favor. Which means that if the prosecution can get a conviction, it'll be very hard for Trump and his lawyers to find a good basis for appeal. It'll be very different for the NY case.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
I think it would be funny if he got short jail time followed by probation and the judge insisted he serve it while waiting on appeal (I doubt he would, but I would love to see it).
While I would love to see that, too, I'd prefer if the judge and everyone else followed the rules to a T: the verdict should be based on sentencing guidelines.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
I think America needs to see him perp-walked in an orange jumpsuit. For its own good. I think those folks who said they won't vote for a convicted felon won't see him as one unless he goes to jail. Even if its just for a week.
IMHO commentators are underestimating the effect even the guilty verdict has: I have heard several times that a significant share of the voting public would not vote for Trump if he were convicted. About 49 % of independents think Trump should drop out of the race. That's half of independents. According to this poll, even 15 % of Republicans agree. (More details on the poll are mentioned in this Forbes story.) Especially the classified documents case seems very clear-cut: it is easy to understand and laypeople have an easy time to see that Trump was doing what he was accused of.
While we should not put too much stock into a single poll, I cannot see a universe where one or multiple convictions are advantageous for Trump's electoral chances. The best he can hope for is that all of this is already baked in. But honestly, I don't think it is. Moreover, his behavior in court matters. The most remarkable piece of the entire story is that Trump's lawyers were not putting up a very good defense in the NY case, not because the lawyers are as moronic as some of Trump's other lawyers, but most likely because Trump (= the client) was determining his lawyers' legal strategy.
The best defense for Trump in the NY case is the elaborate legal construction, not the facts. I think the facts were solid, I would have argued that the legal construction is not.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_img_misc/_gb_mb_previousthread-off.gif)
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Forum Rules
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_sitenav_spacer.gif) |