Yesterday’s SCOTUS oral argument was a disheartening and scary glimpse into an autocratic future. But there still might be a narrow path forward to trial before the election.
They should have declined this case on its face, not look upon it as some golden opportunity to all of a sudden grant heretofore unneeded immunity.
The bumpy, awkward and obvious remanding to some fantasy court camp is utterly disrespectful of their position, a sneer to the framers and an obscene demonstration to and dismissal of we the people.
Why is it the Supreme Court and other courts can decide cases in lightning speed, like the hanging Chad in Florida that got W. elected but when it comes to something simple that they’ve already covered they take several months to review it again. This is a priority, although the cases should be cleared out of the docket
I’m fascinated with watching Barrett’s reactions to both this case and the ID EMTALA one. It’s like she’s having to confront the actual outcomes the legal movement she’s been in her whole career produces in real life. I’d love to be able to look inside her head and see what she’s thinking.
So, these "conservative" justices are trying to rule on a question that is not before the court. The question is about absolute immunity. The answer should be obvious.
Even more interesting is how these "textualists" or "literalists" are trying to find another way to read the constitution to invent a new law that is not there - the immunity from prosecution for a president.
It is clearly not there and has clearly not been asked for until now. Even Nixon knew he was liable to be prosecuted which is why he gladly took the pardon that was offered.
Here's a hypothetical. The court largely decides in Trump's favor before Biden leaves office. He has the conservative justices arrested and jailed and maybe worse. He does something similar with Trump. Can he be held accountable for his "official" acts?
I think Jeff Tiedrich many have a correct take on this “Here’s how this is most likely to play out. Five of the the GOP-appointed Justices are totally in the tank for Trump (Amy Coney Barrett was actually a voice of reason yesterday), but they can’t grant him complete immunity, because that would mean that Sleepy Brandon could sic Seal Team Six on his adversaries, too — including them — and they don’t want that. They want special treatment for only Trump. So what they’ll probably do is grant Trump limited immunity — they’ll split the baby and say that presidents have immunity for political acts but don’t have immunity for personal acts, and then send the case back to Judge Chutkan and tell her that it’s her job to figure on which side of the immunity line insurrecting falls. And when she sensibly rules against Trump, he’ll go crying back to the Appeals Court, and then up to the Supreme Court, and we’ll be right back where were are now.”
So if the court grants immunity, can Biden unilaterally put Trump in prison, just for the hell of it? I'm sure he wouldn't, but can he?
And if they grant full immunity, what's to stop Trump, if "re-elected", from going full Jeffrey Epstein and maintaining a harem of underage girls at the White House, which is probably on his bucket list?
Sounds crazy, I know. But isn't full immunity just as crazy? This is beyond insane. Would these nefarious weasels really overturn a unanimous decision by the appeals court? They're out of control.
It seems clear enough that the four Reactionary activist Associate Justices, (at least one should have recused himself and yes, I'm looking at YOU, Clarence Thomas, you grasping, greedy, grifting son of a batch) and the other three have received their instructions and payments from Lennie Leo. It is utterly sickening that they cannot simply rule on the matter in front of them...but oh no, "we are making rules for the ages". (Alito, the Ass....ociate Justice)
Huh. Is that so. Well, if Roe can be over-turned, so too can this potential disaster of a ruling. And Biden should get his ducks in a row and line up some decent candidates, pronto. We citizenry have to hustle butt and make sure Biden has the majority in both the House and the Senate to get this Stench Court out of the toilet and and on a less fascist standing.
I simply can't believe how the Justices can dismiss the inevitable outcome of setting ANY President--but most especially Trump--free from almost all legal or criminal responsibility. The Stenchy Justices will no longer be needed--hey, even THEY could become targets of assassination, right? This is all so very stupid, I can't even believe I'm seeing this unfold in real time.
Thank you, Jay for the thoughtful analysis without which I would not have known what to make of what. My stomach churns and I'm scared, but the thought of even a possible hopeful outcome helps. Damn Trump to the dust bin of history. It is amazing the damage one man can do.
I think it’s quite evident how the witch burner, seat stealer and double dose of sexual deviants want to rule and what offends me the most is how utterly corrupt and shameless they were about telegraphing their perceived patriarchal superiority.
That’s why we’re here today asking if the Court’s handmaiden who was literally groomed to submit to conservative male authority can save us from the hateful whims of conservative male authority.
All I have to say is that we’d better stop effing around as a populace and vote for Biden.
Jay, I appreciate the hope; but I gave up on this case being heard before the election when the SCOTUS waited until the LAST DAY of oral arguments for this session to finally hear the case. They may even do what Barrett suggested, yes Roberts could "do the right thing." Great! But this court has now shown it's hand, so what happens in November when trump is trying to throw out votes from swing states he narrowly lost? Last time they didn't take up any of trumps appeals, but this time? On top of that Roberts did something very telling when it came to the female justices. During the Idaho abortion hearing it was reported that Roberts admonished Kagan to let the lawyer representing Idaho respond. From what I understand about these hearings Justices are normally allowed to hammer the lawyers without interference, and the people there reporting on it don't remember it EVER happening before. This whole situation is terrifying.
Jay Kuo: Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for so clearly and thoroughly walking us through the maze and clearing the thorns of the bramble on the mess the menacing "Conservative" MALE justices inflicted upon us. And I am increasingly liking Justice Amy Coney Barrett, even as I respectfully disagree with much of her rulings or opinions in other cases.
Ok, a small window for hope. But hope is not a plan. Getting out the vote 💙 in October/November IS a plan, and we here must commit 100% toward that goal. Onward, fellow democracy warriors!!
Meh.
They should have declined this case on its face, not look upon it as some golden opportunity to all of a sudden grant heretofore unneeded immunity.
The bumpy, awkward and obvious remanding to some fantasy court camp is utterly disrespectful of their position, a sneer to the framers and an obscene demonstration to and dismissal of we the people.
Why is it the Supreme Court and other courts can decide cases in lightning speed, like the hanging Chad in Florida that got W. elected but when it comes to something simple that they’ve already covered they take several months to review it again. This is a priority, although the cases should be cleared out of the docket
I’m fascinated with watching Barrett’s reactions to both this case and the ID EMTALA one. It’s like she’s having to confront the actual outcomes the legal movement she’s been in her whole career produces in real life. I’d love to be able to look inside her head and see what she’s thinking.
So, these "conservative" justices are trying to rule on a question that is not before the court. The question is about absolute immunity. The answer should be obvious.
Even more interesting is how these "textualists" or "literalists" are trying to find another way to read the constitution to invent a new law that is not there - the immunity from prosecution for a president.
It is clearly not there and has clearly not been asked for until now. Even Nixon knew he was liable to be prosecuted which is why he gladly took the pardon that was offered.
Here's a hypothetical. The court largely decides in Trump's favor before Biden leaves office. He has the conservative justices arrested and jailed and maybe worse. He does something similar with Trump. Can he be held accountable for his "official" acts?
I think Jeff Tiedrich many have a correct take on this “Here’s how this is most likely to play out. Five of the the GOP-appointed Justices are totally in the tank for Trump (Amy Coney Barrett was actually a voice of reason yesterday), but they can’t grant him complete immunity, because that would mean that Sleepy Brandon could sic Seal Team Six on his adversaries, too — including them — and they don’t want that. They want special treatment for only Trump. So what they’ll probably do is grant Trump limited immunity — they’ll split the baby and say that presidents have immunity for political acts but don’t have immunity for personal acts, and then send the case back to Judge Chutkan and tell her that it’s her job to figure on which side of the immunity line insurrecting falls. And when she sensibly rules against Trump, he’ll go crying back to the Appeals Court, and then up to the Supreme Court, and we’ll be right back where were are now.”
So if the court grants immunity, can Biden unilaterally put Trump in prison, just for the hell of it? I'm sure he wouldn't, but can he?
And if they grant full immunity, what's to stop Trump, if "re-elected", from going full Jeffrey Epstein and maintaining a harem of underage girls at the White House, which is probably on his bucket list?
Sounds crazy, I know. But isn't full immunity just as crazy? This is beyond insane. Would these nefarious weasels really overturn a unanimous decision by the appeals court? They're out of control.
It seems clear enough that the four Reactionary activist Associate Justices, (at least one should have recused himself and yes, I'm looking at YOU, Clarence Thomas, you grasping, greedy, grifting son of a batch) and the other three have received their instructions and payments from Lennie Leo. It is utterly sickening that they cannot simply rule on the matter in front of them...but oh no, "we are making rules for the ages". (Alito, the Ass....ociate Justice)
Huh. Is that so. Well, if Roe can be over-turned, so too can this potential disaster of a ruling. And Biden should get his ducks in a row and line up some decent candidates, pronto. We citizenry have to hustle butt and make sure Biden has the majority in both the House and the Senate to get this Stench Court out of the toilet and and on a less fascist standing.
I simply can't believe how the Justices can dismiss the inevitable outcome of setting ANY President--but most especially Trump--free from almost all legal or criminal responsibility. The Stenchy Justices will no longer be needed--hey, even THEY could become targets of assassination, right? This is all so very stupid, I can't even believe I'm seeing this unfold in real time.
Thank you, Jay for the thoughtful analysis without which I would not have known what to make of what. My stomach churns and I'm scared, but the thought of even a possible hopeful outcome helps. Damn Trump to the dust bin of history. It is amazing the damage one man can do.
How is it possible that the task of "faithfully executing the laws of the nation" would require violating the laws of the nation?
I think it’s quite evident how the witch burner, seat stealer and double dose of sexual deviants want to rule and what offends me the most is how utterly corrupt and shameless they were about telegraphing their perceived patriarchal superiority.
That’s why we’re here today asking if the Court’s handmaiden who was literally groomed to submit to conservative male authority can save us from the hateful whims of conservative male authority.
All I have to say is that we’d better stop effing around as a populace and vote for Biden.
Thank you for continually blowing away the fog & clarifying things for us!
Jay, I appreciate the hope; but I gave up on this case being heard before the election when the SCOTUS waited until the LAST DAY of oral arguments for this session to finally hear the case. They may even do what Barrett suggested, yes Roberts could "do the right thing." Great! But this court has now shown it's hand, so what happens in November when trump is trying to throw out votes from swing states he narrowly lost? Last time they didn't take up any of trumps appeals, but this time? On top of that Roberts did something very telling when it came to the female justices. During the Idaho abortion hearing it was reported that Roberts admonished Kagan to let the lawyer representing Idaho respond. From what I understand about these hearings Justices are normally allowed to hammer the lawyers without interference, and the people there reporting on it don't remember it EVER happening before. This whole situation is terrifying.
I want to believe there's a path, but I am going to admit that I can't squint that hard
Jay Kuo: Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for so clearly and thoroughly walking us through the maze and clearing the thorns of the bramble on the mess the menacing "Conservative" MALE justices inflicted upon us. And I am increasingly liking Justice Amy Coney Barrett, even as I respectfully disagree with much of her rulings or opinions in other cases.
Ok, a small window for hope. But hope is not a plan. Getting out the vote 💙 in October/November IS a plan, and we here must commit 100% toward that goal. Onward, fellow democracy warriors!!