Or, they'll want to expand the SC with progressives who are more progressive than the ones who they thought where more progressive in the first place.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Officers of the United States: Neither the President nor Vice President are Officers of the United States
- Thread starter JAL
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
...because that's not Fascist at all.
This is, in essence, what the Crazy Eyes CO SoS said in response to the SCOTUS decision: "we tried to save Democracy by infringing on democratic processes. I guess we have to leave Saving Democracy up to the voters now..."
Yeah it was pretty darn presumptuous of people like her to think that they could just take away the rights of voters out of their hands in order to single handedly "Save the Democracy" for them. They received a well-deserved smackdown by SCOTUS putting them back in their place and giving that right back to the people.
Bravo SCOTUS.
Last edited:
And then you have a redo of the French revolution, the ugly parts. And most of it was pretty ugly.
Always looking for the next faction who will be radical enough.
Interesting article, a couple of points I did not know. Makes it seem more likely Trump could win the immunity cases.
“Members of Congress and federal judges are immune from civil and criminal prosecution for their official acts. Currently, presidents are only immune from civil prosecution for their official acts. That is because the Supreme Court has never had to decide whether that extends to criminal prosecutions, as no president has ever faced a criminal prosecution until the Democrats’ four criminal indictments against Trump”
thefederalist.com
“Members of Congress and federal judges are immune from civil and criminal prosecution for their official acts. Currently, presidents are only immune from civil prosecution for their official acts. That is because the Supreme Court has never had to decide whether that extends to criminal prosecutions, as no president has ever faced a criminal prosecution until the Democrats’ four criminal indictments against Trump”
Dem Meltdown Over Trump Immunity Shows SCOTUS Is Spot On
Special Counsel Jack Smith did everything he could to rush this case to verdict before the election while cowardly never admitting it.
thefederalist.com
As far as I'm aware, the only people claiming otherwise are the same ilk who sided with Colorado, and whose novel legal theory got *****-slapped 9-0 by SCOTUS.Interesting article, a couple of points I did not know. Makes it seem more likely Trump could win the immunity cases.
“Members of Congress and federal judges are immune from civil and criminal prosecution for their official acts. Currently, presidents are only immune from civil prosecution for their official acts. That is because the Supreme Court has never had to decide whether that extends to criminal prosecutions, as no president has ever faced a criminal prosecution until the Democrats’ four criminal indictments against Trump”
Dem Meltdown Over Trump Immunity Shows SCOTUS Is Spot On
Special Counsel Jack Smith did everything he could to rush this case to verdict before the election while cowardly never admitting it.
Today is a big day in SCOTUS, they are hearing oral arguments on Presidential Immunity. It is odd to me that TPTB want to rein in presidential immunity while simultaneously allowing the president to rule with EO’s that clearly are law that must pass congress.
jonathanturley.org
pjmedia.com
“Craven” and “Insurrectionists”: MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Others Denounce the Supreme Court for Granting Review of Presidential Immunity
Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted review of the presidential immunity question, but set an expedited schedule for the review of the question with oral argument scheduled for April. Former presid…
jonathanturley.org
Is This the Most Important Day for Donald Trump?
pjmedia.com
Justice Alito Destroys Jack Smith's Prosecutor During Trump Immunity Oral Arguments with One Question (AUDIO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila
The Supreme Court on Thursday heard oral arguments on Trump’s presidential immunity claim in Jack Smith’s January 6 case in DC.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Well, he could, but since he's a Democrat, that will never happen.
Trump Attorney Humiliates Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson During Oral Arguments on Immunity Claim (AUDIO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila
John Sauer, the Missouri-based attorney for Trump, humiliated liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson during Thursday’s oral arguments on Trump’s immunity claim before the Supreme Court.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Sure looks like this goes generally in Trump's favor:
All 9 agree that POTUS has some degree of immunity from prosecution (all 9 expressed concern regarding unintended consequences of precedent to the contrary)
The split is in the matter of degree.
The liberal 3 will likely say that POTUS immunity only extends to "core functions" of official acts (whatever that means).
The most conservative 4 might say that POTUS criminal immunity follows extent of Fitzgerald civil immunity.
The middle 2 (Roberts, ACB) are likely to try to split the baby somewhere in-between.
The end result will be a ruling in Trump's favor (6-3? 5-4?), with a remand to the District court to parse the allegations between official and private acts - allowing prosecution only on what remains of those private acts.
The sticky issue will be who defines the test for whether an act falls under immunity as an official act or falls outside immunity as a private act. Will SCOTUS define such a test in their decision, or will they also push that back onto the District court, knowing that whatever that court decides will almost inevitably end up back in front of SCOTUS, anyway?
All 9 agree that POTUS has some degree of immunity from prosecution (all 9 expressed concern regarding unintended consequences of precedent to the contrary)
The split is in the matter of degree.
The liberal 3 will likely say that POTUS immunity only extends to "core functions" of official acts (whatever that means).
The most conservative 4 might say that POTUS criminal immunity follows extent of Fitzgerald civil immunity.
The middle 2 (Roberts, ACB) are likely to try to split the baby somewhere in-between.
The end result will be a ruling in Trump's favor (6-3? 5-4?), with a remand to the District court to parse the allegations between official and private acts - allowing prosecution only on what remains of those private acts.
The sticky issue will be who defines the test for whether an act falls under immunity as an official act or falls outside immunity as a private act. Will SCOTUS define such a test in their decision, or will they also push that back onto the District court, knowing that whatever that court decides will almost inevitably end up back in front of SCOTUS, anyway?
Which will renew calls to stack the court
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- Drakkule
- Noble Sniper
- edporch
- Jojo_2000
- Indye41
- indyblue
- Zackerpacker002
- Amishman44
- mbkintner
- INP8riot
- Taeverling
- gsxr219
- Bosshoss
- DeadeyeChrista'sdad
- cobber
- dustinfz6r
- bacon#1
- Johnhammel13
- Midwestjimbo
- pokersamurai
- sheepdog697
- jy951
- phil
- Basher
- ArevaloSocom
- brettholycross
- Lifeform50
- Meatstick
- Butch627
- Ingomike
- Eagle21
- Hornett
- Eorrick
- daddyusmaximus
- morve80
- cstoltie
- Godbybe
- knutty
- d.kaufman
- 42769vette
- indyjohn
- fnpfan
- Nice_Ron_
- Hayden F
- gdun67
- Big Hank
- user11230706
- TheGrumpyGuy
- IndianaJosh
- Born2vette
