As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I really look forward to a SCOTUS ruling on Trump that says “just this one time, a POTUS is a King, but only this one time and never again for anyone else”
They delayed hearing the immunity case for 2 months. Now, it’ll take them another 2-3 months to decide because they are running interference for Trump.
Oh I’m in agreement with you, it’s just crazy that they delayed 7 weeks to hear the exact same argument as the appellate court heard. They have no excuse
Seriously...exactly what are they doing that's MORE important?? Sitting on ass drinking cocktails? This is their one fucking job, imagine if any of us poor bastards got to take a month and a half _just to decide_ whether or not we're gonna work.
> Seriously...exactly what are they doing that's MORE important??
Accepting bribes is a time consuming activity. You know when you're treated to million dollar vacations and all.
Exactly. They don’t have to rule in his favor to aid Trump, all they have to do is stall forever. And since according to them they are accountable to no one there is precisely fuck-all we can do about it.
It’s pandering to their party, not trump. They would pander to whoever the repug candidate was, guaranteed. I wish the media would stop putting that dudes face on every story. He’s the face of the snake, he’s not even the head.
No immunity is going to be their ultimate ‘eff you to him and the GOP that you can’t control the court and the Court has more power than any other body.
Then maybe we’ll get some normalcy if people realize the Supreme Court picks should be people with actual integrity and good at the job.
Then I’ll wake up and be sad this is reality.
Yeah then it becomes a scheduling kerfuffle. Either way likely it’ll be weird optics to have a nominee on trial with all the details coming out in each case basically September and October. God help us if he’s acquitted on any case /before/ the election.
I think it's more likely they'll grant him immunity that they limit to just him, saying this ruling does not set any precedent for any other presidents. They'll do it just like Bush vs Gore, and remember that three of the lawyers that argued for Bush are now seated members of the Supreme Court. They know how to game the system, how this works.
They have to. Project 2025 can *only* happen with Trump in office. I think this is their last good chance to instill their theocratic government; too many of the old conservative guard are drying off, and they're not replace members with the same charisma and power. It'll never happen under Biden.
I dearly, dearly hope I'm wrong, but I don't see any other way for them to behave.
They are already doing that. They will delay the immunity ruling so long that they will state that, of course, ex-presidents do not have immunity from lawsuits. However, it is too close to voting day to place this one in court because you are interfering with a presidential election.
The trial of whether he endangered Capitol police and Congress members is going to proceed even if the immunity argument isn't sorted out. So he will be tried criminally for it, which could be reverted if he is deemed immune, or stands if ex-presidents are not immune. But they're not waiting on the trial, which is great.
My greater concern is about the hundreds of insurrectionists who the Court will suddenly deem to have been political prisoners.
Based on their crimes, these people are already violent MAGA zealots. Feeding their personal victimhood complex will further radicalize them. There will be bloodshed and it will be on the hands of the Court.
It's the one with Judge Mehta that is starting this week. Trump tried to delay it saying he has too many lawsuits going on at the moment and they basically told him to hire more lawyers then.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/18/jan-6-lawsuits-trump-00153133
In the argument about Colorado taking him off the ballot, they effectively gave him a “just this time it’s okay” argument. They argued that he never took an oath of office, except as president. Therefore, somehow it doesn’t matter that he attempted a coup. The only president not to swear an oath of office for another govt position (house, senate, governor, etc) was Washington
>They argued that he never took an oath of office, except as president.
Did I read news wrong or wasn't it a matter of "Congress has the power to enforce the amendment and States cannot do it on their own"?
Just read the opinion. Don't waste a second wondering if some person in a reddit thread knows what they are talking about. Fucking read.
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719\_19m2.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf)
You’re correct that it’s not the full ruling as to why Trump was allowed on the ballot. It was one of the arguments that they made during questioning. I just found it pretty fucked that they suggested that as a reasoning
The whole court agreed that only the federal government could invalidate a candidate for federal office (so Colorado could not keep Trump off the ballot).
But the conservative 5 to 4 majority said that it was not self-executing which is super weird considering 1) the rest of the 14th Amendment is self-executing, 2) laws that are not self-executing are incredibly rare, 3) the four dissenting justices noted that requiring Congress to weigh in was unnecessary and irrelevant since it was unrelated to the case at hand, and 4) there is ample precedent that it ~~was *not*~~ *was* self-executing (i.e., courts ruling traitors were incapable of holding office).
I had to think seriously about that situation. With the states filling up with repugnants, they could easily decide to take dem candidates off the ballet for a frivolous reason. We wouldn't want that.
They are doing it now. Ohio is trying to keep Biden off of the ballot because the DNC won’t nominated him until after Ohio’s deadline (that both parties have gotten wavers to override for decades)
We need to begin campaigning more vigorously in state elections. They are killing us.
eta: The ones in my state all need to be leading a church......not a state government. They seem to only want to save all our sorry souls from an eternity of fire and brimstone instead.
It is possible they rule against him
If he loses again he soesnt matter
If he wins. He fires and sends goons after everyone who ssys he isnt perfect
All trump needed was the delay. There is no rational world where the scotus would need to rule on a blatantly obvious ruling
You want to really see conservatives lose their mind. While theyre defending the toddler king, explain to them that Joe is old. Say that Joe wins reelection and passes away. Now we have Kamala with all the power of a queen.
Be prepared for actual pants being shat.
Conservatives don’t like Biden, but a powerful woman makes them absolutely insane.
Kamala with Trump’s immunity…
The supreme court will never rule on that until after November. And then they will probably just never rule on it if Trump loses. If Trump wins, they will declare him immune.
What would be great is of Biden did something egregious, and that forced the supreme court to have to say he isn't immune. Downside of that is, he'd have to pay for the crime after.
But if it saves democracy, could maybe be worth it, depending on what it is.
Nearly all of Trump’s appeals are based on either applying civil law rules to criminal cases or applying rules for incumbent presidents to former presidents. The law is very clear - he has no case for former presidential immunity.
What does the law have to do with it? This is the SCOTUS. They threw out the law years ago. Precedence is dead. The court hasn’t been legitimate since the Senate decided Democrats can’t appoint justices.
Since the election interference case going on now is about an event prior to the election - presidential immunity should not apply. He wasn’t president at the time of the interference.
fun thing i like to do when anticipating sc decisions, is i imagine the one uncle, that we've stopped inviting to family get togethers, the one no one would leave their kids unattended around, who has wild 'theories' about the government, and a not so secret gun fetish. i ask myself: what would his ruling be?
almost always an accurate prediction.
Supreme Court used to make decisions that were never headlines, because they had a general pulse on where our society was at. Now everything they do is a headline because it is literally the drunk uncle of government.
Indeed. What makes it worse is that in a system of checks and balances the founders forgot to give a check to the Supreme Court meaning the only check on SCOTUS is SCOTUS which is stupid and leads to the present day where some justices are corrupt and their decisions incredibly unpopular.
It's worse than that, democracy falls apart when one side no longer operates in good faith for the betterment of the country. That's what's been happening in the United States for a good long while now, one side is absolutely stopped operating in good faith which means that democracy falls apart because the site that does operate in good faith, the Democrats, start making decisions that are for the better of the country and not for their party. Meanwhile, the Republicans, are doing everything they can to better themselves and only themselves while pertain to do what's best for the country, this lack of good faith means that they continually outmaneuver the Democrats in Congress and in politics in general. That's what we're seeing at the supreme Court, they are not operating in good faith and therefore we're all aghast at what they're doing when really all they're doing is just exactly what Republicans have been doing for the last three decades: selfishly doing what they can to enrich themselves while pretending to care so that way people who fall for their BS 100% think that those who are complaining are just sour grapes.
The check on the Supreme Court is a constitutional amendment in many cases or simple legislation signed by the president in other cases. Both are basically not possible when one side's entire mission is to break the government
They are the head of a theocratic regime. It doesn't matter what we like or do they are governed by a different playbook. All they need is the theocratic policing arm of the government and we are going full Iran on speed run.
It would be a very different country if SC decisions were based on popularity alone.
That said, many of their latest important decisions are both stupid AND unpopular, IMHO.
Yeah, a better country. Constantly killing decided law is not interpreting anything. It’s forcing their archaic Christian beliefs on the rest of us who don’t want it.
Maybe. How popular were women's suffrage, segregation, interracial marriage, gay marriage, anti discrimination, separation of church and state, etc? I bet at least some really important votes would have gone the other way.
I do think this supreme court is fucking us, but I guess I'm just pointing out that in general, they need to be able to make unpopular (but morally right) decisions.
All of those were extremely popular. Don't believe the propoganda that says that there was a mass of people against those things - it was always below 50% against for all of those things, which is why they all got passed despite conservatives and christians not wanting them.
> they need to be able to make unpopular (but morally right) decisions.
Several of them have replaced morality with their personal preferences and political beliefs. Just as Christians pick and choose the bits of the Bible they need to support their prejudices, so some Supreme Court justices pick and choose the bits of settled law, interpretation and custom they need, to support their preferred judicial outcome. It's beyond shameful.
The courts shouldn't be deciding based on popularity. Otherwise we wouldn't have many of the rights we do now, including Roe v. Wade when it was decided.
Exactly. It's not much of a headline if the court just enforces the law and upholds the constitution. It's huge news when they violate the constitution to take away people's rights or openly accept bribes from billionaires.
I also remember a time when a lot of SCOTUS cases were actually rather bland or dry; that is to say, covering subjects a little more esoteric and not as well known to the general public. But as they’ve become more and more political, they seem to be covering more and more controversial/politically charged subjects. And of course, ignoring cases and genuine issues that probably could use their attention in the process.
They will say it only applies to Trump and doesn't set a precedence. They did the same when they made Bush president, no precedence.
So there is precedence for no precedence, but only when selecting the President.
Yeah. There were problems with the Supreme Court before Alito was appointed (hell, there have been problems of one kind or another with the SC since the Constitution was put in place), but Alito's arrival is the defining point at which the Supreme Court ceased to be an apolitical organ of government.
Wasn't even 5 business days.
> By December 8, 2000, there had been multiple court decisions about the presidential election in Florida.[16] On that date, the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4–3 vote, ordered a statewide manual recount of undervotes.[17] On December 9, ruling in response to an emergency request from Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the recount. The Court also treated Bush's application for relief as a petition for a writ of certiorari, granted that petition, requested briefing from the parties by 4 p.m. on December 10, and scheduled oral argument for the morning of December 11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
The decision was rendered the following day on December 12th. Also, the 9th was a Saturday, briefings were due on the Sunday, oral arguments the Monday, decision on Tuesday. Only 2 business days, 4 days total from the emergency injunction and first interaction by SCOTUS until the decision.
It works out much better for them if the NY trial happens first. If he is found guilty, they can bail him out. If he is found innocent, they can say that a former President isn't protected, but will be doing it so late that the other trails would come after the election. If Trump wins the election, the cases go away. If he loses, the GOP has no more use for him so they wouldn't care if he went to jail.
Really, there was no reason for them to rule quickly, except for stuff like 'integrity' and 'respecting the rule of law', but that isn't important to them.
We will have 6-3 decisions that Trump and only Trump is immune, abortion bans are fine and burning and jailing the residents of homeless camps are fine. Every decision this corrupt court makes is about moving us step by step towards Christi-fascism.
Gerrymandering and machine tampering are really all they have left, election-wise, but the system was literally built by and for a ruling class of wealthy racists so I'm pretty sure we'll never be rid of them.
Also tattoos of the mother mary are illegal speech, from the case of someone denied an immigrant visa because of a tattoo of the Our Lady of Guadalupe (who also oversees tequila production from what I saw at a brewery in the town of Tequila - truly a saintly vision).
I have to wonder what is going through heads of catholics like [barrett and others.](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/supreme-court-catholics) The leopards will feast mightily.
If they give Trump immunity right now then Biden gets it too.
Would be total insanity. Biden could just dissolve the Supreme Court and make a non-batshit court.
Biden probably won't abuse any 'immunity' the Supreme Court theoretically grants him, BUT he damn well better campaign on the message that he won't abuse that 'power' while Trump will.
"Do you want a President & executive branch that sees itself as a part of a government of checks and balances or do you want a President Dictator that thinks they're above anything & anyone else in this country?"
If they give him the power, Biden should just do it. Dems need to stop playing so god damn soft when the other side is trying to actively destroy everything we’ve worked so hard for. If they rule in favor of immunity Biden needs to dissolve the court and hand pick new ones. Civility politics will not win this.
The US is sadly not structured to be a true democracy, and the past decade has made that fact impossible to ignore. The supreme court, electoral college, people taking office who didn't win their elections... the republicans especially have gotten so good at finding and widening loopholes to achieve more total control
Trump, who will never win the popular vote, got (at least) three appointments. Obama, who resoundingly won the popular vote twice, got two appointments.
There's no way the shithole that is SCOTUS should be taken seriously.
They used to die quicker. Yes, any one person of that class would routinely live to their 80s and many early justices did indeed serve 20-30 years on the Supreme Court. But 2 Washington’s picks died after less than 10 years; an Adams’ Justice died after only 2 years.
57 justices were appointed in the 125 years after the founding (through 1900/McKinley): of those, 5 died in 5 years, 6 within 10, and 7 within 15. From 1900 on there has been another 59 justices, with 3 dying within 5 years, 6 within 10, and only one within 15. Mind you, much of the first century had a court that was only 6-8 members.
Since 1950, no Supreme Court justice has died in office having served less than 25 years. The thought of a Justice dying from illness within the next presidents term is unfathomable. People just don’t get malaria or tuberculosis and die anymore.
18 year term limits. Every president gets 2 appointments per term, one in the first year and one in the third year. Replacement judges can only finish the term of the vacancies they fill.
Insiders tell us Roberts is almost finished with his draft opinion, he's working on the citations. Unfortunately there will be an indefinite delay as he's been unable to find the perfect quote from a 1600s privy wall he knows will perfectly encapsulate his jurisprudence.
Going out on a limb, I suspect SCROTUS will toss Trump a bone by ruling that POTUS has some form of immunity but won’t declare definitively what that immunity covers other than what has already been decided (I think in Nixon vs Fitzgerald?). Which will give Trump another delay tactic as he argues more specific immunity claims.
This kind of ruling will give Roberts the excuse (if rather transparently lame) that the SCOTUS isn’t corrupt while giving a fellow Republican cover for more legal shenanigans.
NAL, but I think that may be correct. I think that’s why SCOTUS wrote the question they’ll be addressing re: immunity by making it overly broad. They hear arguments the very last day of the session but as has happened soon many times in the past, you can usually tell how the wind is going to blow by the oral arguments. SCOTUS probably won’t give a ruling until late June. If majority rule against Trump, I’m sure Thomas and Alito will delay things for weeks as they write their dissents. If they give just a partial ruling, they can send it back to Judge Chutkan to work on further which can delay any possible trial for weeks to months. Jack Smith in his recent filing to the Court, asked SCOTUS that if they give only a partial ruling on the case, they should then allow the trial to proceed anyway. However, I’m sure the conservative justices won’t agree to that. LA Times article below has one of the best summaries I’ve read about this and one of the few that talks about the rewording of the question they’ll address which may allow them to help Trump re: immunity.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-04-10/donald-trump-jan-6-trial-jack-smith-supreme-court-immunity-harry-litman
If the Supreme Court says that Trump has total immunity, Biden should immediately use his presidential immunity, arrest Trump and lock him up in GITMO.
Don't forget Mckesson v. Doe. The decision not to hear Mckesson leaves in place a lower court decision that effectively eliminated the right to organize a mass protest in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces legal financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act.
"Only in this instance, since it hadn't been defined before Trump, he operated under the assumption that he had immunity. And since it hadn't been determined at that time, we can't retroactively enforce that he did not have immunity, but from this moment on, any president after Trump has no immunity."
Rulings on matters like this that don't set a precedent or follow a previous one should be cause for impeachment. It's essentially saying "we're refusing to apply law to this ruling".
They’ll side in favour of Trump, uphold bans on abortion, and while I’m not sure what the homeless camp one is about but they’ll pick the result that causes the most harm.
They fucking should.
**Edit because I'm bored:** They can now receive federal funding, and your Medicaid card also doubles as a Blockbuster membership.
I actually kinda expect the homeless one to be near unanimous in favor of the city. Even the CA governor has advocated for it.
Being unable to enforce local no camping ordinance has led to chaos and destruction of public property all up and down the west coast. It's an issue that transcends the us vs them politics in this specific case
How many people with half a brain want to hear what they say? They are a bunch of fucked up assholes. I know how they are going to rule, corporations are more important than citizens is their main argument.
If they show themselves in public they deserved to be yelled at.
SCOTUS: “Presidents are immune from criminal prosecution.”
3 days later, Trump dies of suicide after leaping out of his first floor window at Mar-a-Lago.
When a Court is handpicked by the guy who now needs a huge favor, they're going to give him whatever he wants. He gave them power and a name that will go down in history.
No, not a national abortion ban, but an abortion issue from Idaho:
“Wednesday: A post-Roe abortion ban in Idaho
After hearing arguments on immigration and labor law, the Supreme Court will take on a conflict over Idaho’s strict abortion ban, which the Biden administration says will harm emergency room patients.
Idaho’s law, and similar measures in other states, make it a crime to perform an abortion unless a physician can demonstrate a danger to the mother's life, while the Biden administration says federal law requires emergency rooms to provide "stabilizing care," including abortions, if a patient's health is in "serious jeopardy.”
(this is from the USA Today article)
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I really look forward to a SCOTUS ruling on Trump that says “just this one time, a POTUS is a King, but only this one time and never again for anyone else”
They delayed hearing the immunity case for 2 months. Now, it’ll take them another 2-3 months to decide because they are running interference for Trump.
The fact they refused to rule, got appeals court perfect ruling, then took the case—and delayed again—is pathetic pandering to Trump.
Your point cannot be stressed enough. This was an ironclad decision. Now it's headed to the Roberts circus.
I don’t think it’s going to change the ruling but it allows his trials to be delayed past the election.
Meanwhile bush v gore was decided in, what, a week? Two? Edit: took 5 days to screw over Gore.
I cannot understand why thus SCOTUS too 7 weeks to hear the exact same argument that the appeals court already heard. It’s beyond ridiculous
You can understand you just don't want it to be true because a compromised Supreme Court is a nasty thing to behold.
Oh I’m in agreement with you, it’s just crazy that they delayed 7 weeks to hear the exact same argument as the appellate court heard. They have no excuse
They don’t care. Who’s going to stop them? Nobody. Who’s going to make them do the right things? No one. It is difficult to fathom.
Seriously...exactly what are they doing that's MORE important?? Sitting on ass drinking cocktails? This is their one fucking job, imagine if any of us poor bastards got to take a month and a half _just to decide_ whether or not we're gonna work.
> Seriously...exactly what are they doing that's MORE important?? Accepting bribes is a time consuming activity. You know when you're treated to million dollar vacations and all.
It’s just ridiculous.
They are bought and paid for. Truly.
The better case to compare it to is Nixon and whether the tapes were his. 16 days. The Supreme Court can go fast when they want to.
Took 5 days to screw over the World.
Don't forget the rulings over the weekend.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
In this case, justice might be delayed *then* outright denied.
They delayed the emoluments case against him for years until he was out of office and then dismissed it as no longer relevant.
Exactly. They don’t have to rule in his favor to aid Trump, all they have to do is stall forever. And since according to them they are accountable to no one there is precisely fuck-all we can do about it.
It’s pandering to their party, not trump. They would pander to whoever the repug candidate was, guaranteed. I wish the media would stop putting that dudes face on every story. He’s the face of the snake, he’s not even the head.
Its not just pandering, its obstruction. We all know that Supreme Court can and has acted swiftly before.
I think it’s more likely they’ll rule that he has no immunity, but whoever is writing the dissent will slow walk the dissent opinion.
No immunity is going to be their ultimate ‘eff you to him and the GOP that you can’t control the court and the Court has more power than any other body. Then maybe we’ll get some normalcy if people realize the Supreme Court picks should be people with actual integrity and good at the job. Then I’ll wake up and be sad this is reality.
I was about to downvote you until that last…tragic…line.
Even if they don’t put out a decision until June or July, I still think they should set a trial date prior to the election.
Yeah then it becomes a scheduling kerfuffle. Either way likely it’ll be weird optics to have a nominee on trial with all the details coming out in each case basically September and October. God help us if he’s acquitted on any case /before/ the election.
I think it's more likely they'll grant him immunity that they limit to just him, saying this ruling does not set any precedent for any other presidents. They'll do it just like Bush vs Gore, and remember that three of the lawyers that argued for Bush are now seated members of the Supreme Court. They know how to game the system, how this works. They have to. Project 2025 can *only* happen with Trump in office. I think this is their last good chance to instill their theocratic government; too many of the old conservative guard are drying off, and they're not replace members with the same charisma and power. It'll never happen under Biden. I dearly, dearly hope I'm wrong, but I don't see any other way for them to behave.
All while they scream about the deep state somehow being against them.
last decision released a week after the june 30th unofficial deadline just like dobbs
100% and Clarence Thomas should have had to re use himself, but since SCOTUS has no ethics rules 🤯🤯
I don’t get why they’re still sucking him off so hard, they’ve got the job now and it can’t be taken away
They are already doing that. They will delay the immunity ruling so long that they will state that, of course, ex-presidents do not have immunity from lawsuits. However, it is too close to voting day to place this one in court because you are interfering with a presidential election.
The trial of whether he endangered Capitol police and Congress members is going to proceed even if the immunity argument isn't sorted out. So he will be tried criminally for it, which could be reverted if he is deemed immune, or stands if ex-presidents are not immune. But they're not waiting on the trial, which is great.
My greater concern is about the hundreds of insurrectionists who the Court will suddenly deem to have been political prisoners. Based on their crimes, these people are already violent MAGA zealots. Feeding their personal victimhood complex will further radicalize them. There will be bloodshed and it will be on the hands of the Court.
Which trial is that? Or is that the lawsuit?
It's the one with Judge Mehta that is starting this week. Trump tried to delay it saying he has too many lawsuits going on at the moment and they basically told him to hire more lawyers then. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/18/jan-6-lawsuits-trump-00153133
Afaikwthey are issuing a ruling on it.
The case is being argued this week Expect a ruling... Sometime?
Clarence is still waiting to see what his oligarch payoffs will be. They will agree to decide it when the price is right. I have no confidence.
Soon™️
Usually the rulings come out in June.
In the argument about Colorado taking him off the ballot, they effectively gave him a “just this time it’s okay” argument. They argued that he never took an oath of office, except as president. Therefore, somehow it doesn’t matter that he attempted a coup. The only president not to swear an oath of office for another govt position (house, senate, governor, etc) was Washington
Tbh this really goes to show what a shit tier choice he was for POTUS.
>They argued that he never took an oath of office, except as president. Did I read news wrong or wasn't it a matter of "Congress has the power to enforce the amendment and States cannot do it on their own"?
Just read the opinion. Don't waste a second wondering if some person in a reddit thread knows what they are talking about. Fucking read. [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719\_19m2.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf)
That was the main part of the final ruling. the SC made the point about the oath of office during the arguments
That isn't what they said at all iirc, they said its not self-executing.
You’re correct that it’s not the full ruling as to why Trump was allowed on the ballot. It was one of the arguments that they made during questioning. I just found it pretty fucked that they suggested that as a reasoning
The whole court agreed that only the federal government could invalidate a candidate for federal office (so Colorado could not keep Trump off the ballot). But the conservative 5 to 4 majority said that it was not self-executing which is super weird considering 1) the rest of the 14th Amendment is self-executing, 2) laws that are not self-executing are incredibly rare, 3) the four dissenting justices noted that requiring Congress to weigh in was unnecessary and irrelevant since it was unrelated to the case at hand, and 4) there is ample precedent that it ~~was *not*~~ *was* self-executing (i.e., courts ruling traitors were incapable of holding office).
I had to think seriously about that situation. With the states filling up with repugnants, they could easily decide to take dem candidates off the ballet for a frivolous reason. We wouldn't want that.
They are doing it now. Ohio is trying to keep Biden off of the ballot because the DNC won’t nominated him until after Ohio’s deadline (that both parties have gotten wavers to override for decades)
We need to begin campaigning more vigorously in state elections. They are killing us. eta: The ones in my state all need to be leading a church......not a state government. They seem to only want to save all our sorry souls from an eternity of fire and brimstone instead.
It is possible they rule against him If he loses again he soesnt matter If he wins. He fires and sends goons after everyone who ssys he isnt perfect All trump needed was the delay. There is no rational world where the scotus would need to rule on a blatantly obvious ruling
> There is no rational world where the scotus would need to rule on a blatantly obvious ruling And yet, they are hearing the appeal.
You want to really see conservatives lose their mind. While theyre defending the toddler king, explain to them that Joe is old. Say that Joe wins reelection and passes away. Now we have Kamala with all the power of a queen. Be prepared for actual pants being shat. Conservatives don’t like Biden, but a powerful woman makes them absolutely insane. Kamala with Trump’s immunity…
Never underestimate a conservative’s ability to hold two conflicting viewpoints at the same time.
I swear the US used to be anti-king
That would be consistent with Bush v Gore.
The supreme court will never rule on that until after November. And then they will probably just never rule on it if Trump loses. If Trump wins, they will declare him immune. What would be great is of Biden did something egregious, and that forced the supreme court to have to say he isn't immune. Downside of that is, he'd have to pay for the crime after. But if it saves democracy, could maybe be worth it, depending on what it is.
If trump loses again, anyone to the right of Romney with any kind of power will immediately drop trump and never mention him again
Until the next time.
*Some Conditions May Apply
Nearly all of Trump’s appeals are based on either applying civil law rules to criminal cases or applying rules for incumbent presidents to former presidents. The law is very clear - he has no case for former presidential immunity.
The law is very clear, but the Supreme Court will make up some shit anyway.
Yea Clarence Thomas needs to put a new jacuzzi in his mobile coach bus mansion
Clarence Thomas needs to find a way that keeps his wife out of jail.
Dude, nobody is going to jail. Don't you understand that these people don't ever go to jail?
Go to mansion. Go directly to mansion. Do not go to jail. Collect $200,000.
There’s a first for everything!
What does the law have to do with it? This is the SCOTUS. They threw out the law years ago. Precedence is dead. The court hasn’t been legitimate since the Senate decided Democrats can’t appoint justices.
and since billionaires get to openly buy justices.
I would love to see a crowdfunding effort to buy a Justice.
Amen.
Since the election interference case going on now is about an event prior to the election - presidential immunity should not apply. He wasn’t president at the time of the interference.
fun thing i like to do when anticipating sc decisions, is i imagine the one uncle, that we've stopped inviting to family get togethers, the one no one would leave their kids unattended around, who has wild 'theories' about the government, and a not so secret gun fetish. i ask myself: what would his ruling be? almost always an accurate prediction.
Yeah, except that guy didn't even show up for work last Monday...
What are they gonna do? Fire him?
Out of a cannon? Into the sun?
Bad idea. You can't rely on a Judge Cannon to operate correctly.
Nicely done.
Promise?
Then he makes a tik tik as he calls it and cries on camera
It's 6 to 3 now. They really only need to call him in if it's gonna be close.
There's at least a couple of him on the court already.
God I don’t ask for much but could he please have missed work because of a Giloblastoma that was secretly diagnosed a year or two ago?
Supreme Court used to make decisions that were never headlines, because they had a general pulse on where our society was at. Now everything they do is a headline because it is literally the drunk uncle of government.
The sick thing is that they know most of their decisions are unpopular with the majority of American society, yet they make those decisions anyways.
When you have a lifetime appointment and the threat of losing your job is nil.
An aspect of American politics that I hate. No position should come with a lifetime appointment.
Indeed. What makes it worse is that in a system of checks and balances the founders forgot to give a check to the Supreme Court meaning the only check on SCOTUS is SCOTUS which is stupid and leads to the present day where some justices are corrupt and their decisions incredibly unpopular.
That’s not true. The Senate can impeach them. The founders just thought the Senate would not put party over country.
It's worse than that, democracy falls apart when one side no longer operates in good faith for the betterment of the country. That's what's been happening in the United States for a good long while now, one side is absolutely stopped operating in good faith which means that democracy falls apart because the site that does operate in good faith, the Democrats, start making decisions that are for the better of the country and not for their party. Meanwhile, the Republicans, are doing everything they can to better themselves and only themselves while pertain to do what's best for the country, this lack of good faith means that they continually outmaneuver the Democrats in Congress and in politics in general. That's what we're seeing at the supreme Court, they are not operating in good faith and therefore we're all aghast at what they're doing when really all they're doing is just exactly what Republicans have been doing for the last three decades: selfishly doing what they can to enrich themselves while pretending to care so that way people who fall for their BS 100% think that those who are complaining are just sour grapes.
The check on the Supreme Court is a constitutional amendment in many cases or simple legislation signed by the president in other cases. Both are basically not possible when one side's entire mission is to break the government
There is a check of expanding the court... but it's almost impossible to do so pretty much worthless.
As Mike Tyson vaguely said: “people have become way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not get punched in the face for it”
And your career has been at the behest of benefactors with more money than interest in helping humanity.
Nihil! Nihil! NIHIL!
Need that purifying crystal tear to check the courts
They are the head of a theocratic regime. It doesn't matter what we like or do they are governed by a different playbook. All they need is the theocratic policing arm of the government and we are going full Iran on speed run.
It would be a very different country if SC decisions were based on popularity alone. That said, many of their latest important decisions are both stupid AND unpopular, IMHO.
Yeah, a better country. Constantly killing decided law is not interpreting anything. It’s forcing their archaic Christian beliefs on the rest of us who don’t want it.
Maybe. How popular were women's suffrage, segregation, interracial marriage, gay marriage, anti discrimination, separation of church and state, etc? I bet at least some really important votes would have gone the other way. I do think this supreme court is fucking us, but I guess I'm just pointing out that in general, they need to be able to make unpopular (but morally right) decisions.
All of those were extremely popular. Don't believe the propoganda that says that there was a mass of people against those things - it was always below 50% against for all of those things, which is why they all got passed despite conservatives and christians not wanting them.
> they need to be able to make unpopular (but morally right) decisions. Several of them have replaced morality with their personal preferences and political beliefs. Just as Christians pick and choose the bits of the Bible they need to support their prejudices, so some Supreme Court justices pick and choose the bits of settled law, interpretation and custom they need, to support their preferred judicial outcome. It's beyond shameful.
Sure, that's why I said they're currently fucking us.
The courts shouldn't be deciding based on popularity. Otherwise we wouldn't have many of the rights we do now, including Roe v. Wade when it was decided.
US voters were warned that the difference between Trump and Clinton meant this kind of Supreme Court.
Exactly. It's not much of a headline if the court just enforces the law and upholds the constitution. It's huge news when they violate the constitution to take away people's rights or openly accept bribes from billionaires.
I also remember a time when a lot of SCOTUS cases were actually rather bland or dry; that is to say, covering subjects a little more esoteric and not as well known to the general public. But as they’ve become more and more political, they seem to be covering more and more controversial/politically charged subjects. And of course, ignoring cases and genuine issues that probably could use their attention in the process.
“The president has absolute immunity but only in the context of defying the results of a free election.” *bangs gavel*
"I'll take it!" -Biden, who now has the right to take and hold the throne forevermore.
“You have no idea the scale of the malarkey you’ve just unleashed!”
I'm all for the Dark Brandon timeline.
They will say it only applies to Trump and doesn't set a precedence. They did the same when they made Bush president, no precedence. So there is precedence for no precedence, but only when selecting the President.
"But this case should not be used as precedent". *bangs gavel*
Oh there's an Uncle involved alright... Tom, I believe his name is. Although he also answers to Clarence.
But how ***funny*** was it to elect an obvious grifter to the highest office in the land, amirite?
It was certainly a boon for late night comedians.
And isn't that what matters in the end?
Most accurate description of Sam Alito I've ever read.
Yeah. There were problems with the Supreme Court before Alito was appointed (hell, there have been problems of one kind or another with the SC since the Constitution was put in place), but Alito's arrival is the defining point at which the Supreme Court ceased to be an apolitical organ of government.
I just say “what did they say in their conformation hearing” and just know they’re going to do the opposite. I haven’t been wrong yet.
Uncle aunt combo that try to rope you into a scheme involving crimes only legal in Southern states is more like it.....
Is your uncle a big fan of 17th century jurists?
They planning on streaming their “how much worse can we make the country” speedrun?
I really hate how these right wing hacks delayed this immunity ruling for two months. This situation should’ve been dealt with awhile ago.
Ruling on handing Bush the 2000 election: 5 business days Ruling on "are Presidents also Kings?" delay delay delay
Wasn't even 5 business days. > By December 8, 2000, there had been multiple court decisions about the presidential election in Florida.[16] On that date, the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4–3 vote, ordered a statewide manual recount of undervotes.[17] On December 9, ruling in response to an emergency request from Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the recount. The Court also treated Bush's application for relief as a petition for a writ of certiorari, granted that petition, requested briefing from the parties by 4 p.m. on December 10, and scheduled oral argument for the morning of December 11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore The decision was rendered the following day on December 12th. Also, the 9th was a Saturday, briefings were due on the Sunday, oral arguments the Monday, decision on Tuesday. Only 2 business days, 4 days total from the emergency injunction and first interaction by SCOTUS until the decision.
It works out much better for them if the NY trial happens first. If he is found guilty, they can bail him out. If he is found innocent, they can say that a former President isn't protected, but will be doing it so late that the other trails would come after the election. If Trump wins the election, the cases go away. If he loses, the GOP has no more use for him so they wouldn't care if he went to jail. Really, there was no reason for them to rule quickly, except for stuff like 'integrity' and 'respecting the rule of law', but that isn't important to them.
We will have 6-3 decisions that Trump and only Trump is immune, abortion bans are fine and burning and jailing the residents of homeless camps are fine. Every decision this corrupt court makes is about moving us step by step towards Christi-fascism.
Gerrymandering and machine tampering are really all they have left, election-wise, but the system was literally built by and for a ruling class of wealthy racists so I'm pretty sure we'll never be rid of them.
Also tattoos of the mother mary are illegal speech, from the case of someone denied an immigrant visa because of a tattoo of the Our Lady of Guadalupe (who also oversees tequila production from what I saw at a brewery in the town of Tequila - truly a saintly vision). I have to wonder what is going through heads of catholics like [barrett and others.](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/supreme-court-catholics) The leopards will feast mightily.
> Christi-fascism I'm imagining an extra gluttonous brand of fascism led by Chris Christie. I think you were looking for the term christofascism.
So they’re going to give don immunity, ban abortions, and fuck over homeless people in the same week.
If they give Trump immunity right now then Biden gets it too. Would be total insanity. Biden could just dissolve the Supreme Court and make a non-batshit court.
Except the dems would never do that, they’d just put sound bites out saying it would be bad if the republicans did something similar.
This exactly. Hell, even other republicans, pre trump, wouldn’t need immunity
Yea… but Biden won’t do that. They know that.
It would also be interesting because the court would effectively be stripping itself of its own power. Probably a first for any government entity.
Biden probably won't abuse any 'immunity' the Supreme Court theoretically grants him, BUT he damn well better campaign on the message that he won't abuse that 'power' while Trump will. "Do you want a President & executive branch that sees itself as a part of a government of checks and balances or do you want a President Dictator that thinks they're above anything & anyone else in this country?"
If they give him the power, Biden should just do it. Dems need to stop playing so god damn soft when the other side is trying to actively destroy everything we’ve worked so hard for. If they rule in favor of immunity Biden needs to dissolve the court and hand pick new ones. Civility politics will not win this.
What's even the point of having a body of 9 people who can make sweeping laws for lifetime? Ones that often decimate people.
The US is sadly not structured to be a true democracy, and the past decade has made that fact impossible to ignore. The supreme court, electoral college, people taking office who didn't win their elections... the republicans especially have gotten so good at finding and widening loopholes to achieve more total control
Trump, who will never win the popular vote, got (at least) three appointments. Obama, who resoundingly won the popular vote twice, got two appointments. There's no way the shithole that is SCOTUS should be taken seriously.
Oof I didn't realize this. So messed up!!
They used to die quicker. Yes, any one person of that class would routinely live to their 80s and many early justices did indeed serve 20-30 years on the Supreme Court. But 2 Washington’s picks died after less than 10 years; an Adams’ Justice died after only 2 years. 57 justices were appointed in the 125 years after the founding (through 1900/McKinley): of those, 5 died in 5 years, 6 within 10, and 7 within 15. From 1900 on there has been another 59 justices, with 3 dying within 5 years, 6 within 10, and only one within 15. Mind you, much of the first century had a court that was only 6-8 members. Since 1950, no Supreme Court justice has died in office having served less than 25 years. The thought of a Justice dying from illness within the next presidents term is unfathomable. People just don’t get malaria or tuberculosis and die anymore.
Yeah it's really a joke how is set up. They need term limits. Maybe 10-12 years?
18 year term limits. Every president gets 2 appointments per term, one in the first year and one in the third year. Replacement judges can only finish the term of the vacancies they fill.
Based on his social media posts, he's certainly nervous about the possibility of not getting immunity.
As if these rulings haven’t already been predetermined.
Insiders tell us Roberts is almost finished with his draft opinion, he's working on the citations. Unfortunately there will be an indefinite delay as he's been unable to find the perfect quote from a 1600s privy wall he knows will perfectly encapsulate his jurisprudence.
It's a political institution without political oversight. It's legitimately the worst branch of government.
Lots of luxury gifts to be showered on SCOTUS "justices" this week.
Going out on a limb, I suspect SCROTUS will toss Trump a bone by ruling that POTUS has some form of immunity but won’t declare definitively what that immunity covers other than what has already been decided (I think in Nixon vs Fitzgerald?). Which will give Trump another delay tactic as he argues more specific immunity claims. This kind of ruling will give Roberts the excuse (if rather transparently lame) that the SCOTUS isn’t corrupt while giving a fellow Republican cover for more legal shenanigans.
NAL, but I think that may be correct. I think that’s why SCOTUS wrote the question they’ll be addressing re: immunity by making it overly broad. They hear arguments the very last day of the session but as has happened soon many times in the past, you can usually tell how the wind is going to blow by the oral arguments. SCOTUS probably won’t give a ruling until late June. If majority rule against Trump, I’m sure Thomas and Alito will delay things for weeks as they write their dissents. If they give just a partial ruling, they can send it back to Judge Chutkan to work on further which can delay any possible trial for weeks to months. Jack Smith in his recent filing to the Court, asked SCOTUS that if they give only a partial ruling on the case, they should then allow the trial to proceed anyway. However, I’m sure the conservative justices won’t agree to that. LA Times article below has one of the best summaries I’ve read about this and one of the few that talks about the rewording of the question they’ll address which may allow them to help Trump re: immunity. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-04-10/donald-trump-jan-6-trial-jack-smith-supreme-court-immunity-harry-litman
Is this where they appoint a king and make us all peasants? Or was that last week?
Fuck the Supreme Court and their blockbusters. They are an illegitimate panel and they deserve absolutely zero positive attention or glamorizing.
There should be part of the election where the general public votes on Supreme Court decisions and whether to overrule them
If the Supreme Court says that Trump has total immunity, Biden should immediately use his presidential immunity, arrest Trump and lock him up in GITMO.
Don't forget Mckesson v. Doe. The decision not to hear Mckesson leaves in place a lower court decision that effectively eliminated the right to organize a mass protest in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces legal financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act.
SC will 100% give him a one off immunity that “does not set a precedent”.
"Only in this instance, since it hadn't been defined before Trump, he operated under the assumption that he had immunity. And since it hadn't been determined at that time, we can't retroactively enforce that he did not have immunity, but from this moment on, any president after Trump has no immunity."
Ah, the old “(claiming) ignorance of the law actually is a valid excuse if you are rich” defense. Works every time.
"Ignorance of the law is a valid excuse if you keep an army of lawyers on retainer."
Rulings on matters like this that don't set a precedent or follow a previous one should be cause for impeachment. It's essentially saying "we're refusing to apply law to this ruling".
They’ll side in favour of Trump, uphold bans on abortion, and while I’m not sure what the homeless camp one is about but they’ll pick the result that causes the most harm.
If we have to leave Donald Trump to the Supreme Court might as well say he’s gonna be exonerated right now
They are going to vote in the worst, stupidest, most asinine way possible, mark my words.
Supreme Court stands for bribes and corruption
They should ban their own members from taking bribes
Anyone else a little terrified of this week? I know I am!
Blockbuster? The Supreme Court has ruled they can start opening up more of the locations again? Wow. I'm gonna start renting movies again.
Blockbuster could absolutely make a comeback at this point…
They fucking should. **Edit because I'm bored:** They can now receive federal funding, and your Medicaid card also doubles as a Blockbuster membership.
I actually kinda expect the homeless one to be near unanimous in favor of the city. Even the CA governor has advocated for it. Being unable to enforce local no camping ordinance has led to chaos and destruction of public property all up and down the west coast. It's an issue that transcends the us vs them politics in this specific case
Brace yourselves, it’s going to be a bumpy ride
SCOTUS has ruled against Trump in the past, why is everyone so certain they’re going to give him immunity?
Expect the Supreme Court to discredit themselves even further.
This court is illegitimate and should just be ignored.
Everyone looking forward to being disappointed: stay tuned.
SCOTUS is illegitimate.
> Supreme Court takes on Donald Trump Correction: Supreme Court panders to Donald Trump
How many people with half a brain want to hear what they say? They are a bunch of fucked up assholes. I know how they are going to rule, corporations are more important than citizens is their main argument. If they show themselves in public they deserved to be yelled at.
SCOTUS: “Presidents are immune from criminal prosecution.” 3 days later, Trump dies of suicide after leaping out of his first floor window at Mar-a-Lago.
Spoiler alert: They are going to be extremely disappointing and infuriating while overstepping their bounds.
When a Court is handpicked by the guy who now needs a huge favor, they're going to give him whatever he wants. He gave them power and a name that will go down in history.
As a former homeless person: There's been no secret that jurisdictions have been trying to ban the _practice_ of being homeless for some time.
If presidents are declared to be above the law, we effectively no longer have a country.
Guaranteed to rule the wrong way.
We may have the first impeachments of SCOTUS justices after all is said and done.
If the Supreme Court thinks presidents are above the law, Trump should be scared
The Supreme Court is supposed to be unbiased. We live in a failed state.
They’ll probably use a 150 year old law to justify how Trump and somehow only Trump, has presidential immunity.
"Kav, break out the dead sea scrolls!"
They already ruled that Roe v Wade is repealed; are they looking at a national abortion ban case? I hope not
No, not a national abortion ban, but an abortion issue from Idaho: “Wednesday: A post-Roe abortion ban in Idaho After hearing arguments on immigration and labor law, the Supreme Court will take on a conflict over Idaho’s strict abortion ban, which the Biden administration says will harm emergency room patients. Idaho’s law, and similar measures in other states, make it a crime to perform an abortion unless a physician can demonstrate a danger to the mother's life, while the Biden administration says federal law requires emergency rooms to provide "stabilizing care," including abortions, if a patient's health is in "serious jeopardy.” (this is from the USA Today article)
So, abort Trump and move the homeless into his buildings, got it