|
Post by onelasttime on Jun 26, 2024 0:02:44 GMT
It seems the Court will have 3 opinion days this week instead of one that was previously. The question becomes will one of the decisions be the trump one saying a president has full immunity. The answer should be no since the Framers set it up so a president could be impeached. But with this gang who knows. Of course I’m adding a poll asking which way do you think this gang will decide. Josh Gerstein…. ”JUST IN: #SCOTUS announces Thursday and Friday of this week as opinion days in addition to previously-announced Wednesday. Still a chance to clear the decks by Friday.” x.com/joshgerstein/status/1805298344492683420?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nw
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jun 26, 2024 0:16:57 GMT
From Constitutional Accountability…. linkCase Summary “In August 2023, Special Counsel Jack Smith charged former President Donald Trump with using force and deceit to overturn the results of the 2020 election, in violation of federal law. In response, Trump argued, among other things, that he enjoys sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for any action taken during his presidency, and that his acquittal at an impeachment trial bars his subsequent prosecution. The D.C. District Court rejected Trump’s sweeping immunity claims, and on appeal, the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld this ruling. Trump sought an emergency stay of the D.C. Circuit’s mandate from the Supreme Court. CAC filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of constitutional law scholars urging the justices to reject the application for a stay and allow the federal criminal proceedings against Trump to continue. The Court stayed the mandate and granted cert on the question of whether a former president is immune from criminal prosecution for allegedly official acts committed during his tenure in office. CAC filed a brief on behalf of constitutional law scholars urging the Court to reject Trump’s immunity arguments. The president—or the former president—is not a king. Our brief makes three principal points. First, constitutional text and history do not support President Trump’s broad immunity claim. The text of the Constitution provides a form of immunity for legislators under the Speech or Debate Clause, but not for sitting or former presidents. In other words, the framers knew how to draft immunity language, but chose not to do so for presidents. Seeking to distinguish the president from a British King, the Constitution’s framers and ratifiers repeatedly indicated that a president, in the words of James Iredell, was “punishable by the laws of his country” and “not exempt from a trial.” Second, Supreme Court precedent does not support Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held that the president enjoys immunity from civil damages claims for certain actions taken while in office, but it did not address immunity from criminal prosecution. And significantly, the rationales the Court relied upon in Fitzgerald do not support Trump’s claims. Fitzgerald specifically distinguished a president’s civil damages liability from instances in which a president faces criminal prosecution, where the “interest to be served” by exposing the president to liability are much greater. Finally, the Impeachment Judgment Clause does not bar the prosecution of a former president, even following an acquittal in impeachment proceedings. In prescribing that a “Party convicted” is subject to indictment, the Clause does not silently prohibit indictment of a party acquitted in impeachment proceedings, nor does it differentiate between the President and other officials. Instead, the Clause makes clear that while the only penalty that the Senate can impose following impeachment is removal from office, a “Party convicted” may still be subject to additional punishment through the nation’s criminal legal system. The framers viewed the impeachment process as entirely distinct from criminal prosecution and thus thought that the result of one proceeding should have no impact on the other. They saw impeachment as “a proceeding purely of a political nature,” completely unrelated to “ordinary jurisprudence.” This is true for every federal officer subject to impeachment, including the president. In sum, because there is no basis in constitutional text and history or Supreme Court precedent for Trump’s immunity claims, the Supreme Court should reject it.”
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 26, 2024 0:49:40 GMT
I have no confidence in this court
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 26, 2024 1:08:38 GMT
No other president had it or needed immunity. Most made very difficult decisions, some maybe not the best but they all did their best to protect our country, The United States of America! The exceptions have been Nixon and he resigned, pardoned by Ford.. And now TFG who has been convicted of sexual assault(occured prior to election with defamation during and after), prior to his election. And guilty of 34 felonies, which he carried out himself. He also allegedly committed crimes AFTER he left office... There should be no questions about immunity after noon 1/06/21
I also do not trust the SCOTUS. Many have said that it would be chaos if the immunity decision were to be issued before the debate. That might be the reason for Friday...
|
|
|
Post by AussieMeg on Jun 26, 2024 9:08:24 GMT
I selected "No, a president does not have full immunity" but I think that might be more wishful thinking than confidence, truth be told!
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Jun 26, 2024 10:04:54 GMT
If for no other reason than their supposed opponent is currently president they really ought to reject it right now whether it is the right thing to do or not. I believe they are smart enough to realize that. Obviously they can always change their minds later if Trump wins.They lied & changed Roe so nothing will ever be settled with this bunch.
BUT do they feel that right now is the only chance they have to let him off the hook that they chance the immunity ruling thinking & expecting that Biden will do the right thing as he has past. Who knows with these purchased clowns. The current SCOTUS is bought & paid for & a joke.
|
|
|
Post by Bridget in MD on Jun 26, 2024 11:26:44 GMT
I am scared to death. And they always seem to drop a pile of shit just before their summer break.
|
|
pilcas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,236
Aug 14, 2015 21:47:17 GMT
|
Post by pilcas on Jun 26, 2024 12:18:29 GMT
I was a HS teacher and the day after the 2016 election an Eastern European student of mine said to me: this is the beginning of the end. Eight years later I still remember his words. To be honest, I feel We barely knew how bad it would get.
|
|
|
Post by jill8909 on Jun 26, 2024 12:20:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jun 26, 2024 14:26:25 GMT
Maybe tomorrow….
Kyle Griffin…
”No more decisions today.
12 Supreme Court cases are still to be decided — including Trump's presidential immunity case.
More decisions will be announced Thursday at 10am.”
Today’s decision.
ABC News..
”BREAKING: The Supreme Court rejected a Republican-led challenge to the Biden administration's communication with social media companies about misinformation on their sites, stating the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to sue. trib.al/z89iSrX”
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jun 26, 2024 14:36:52 GMT
Wait a minute. Another decision.. NARROWING the scope of public corruption law?? AP… ”BREAKING: The Supreme Court overturns the bribery conviction of a former Indiana mayor, narrowing the scope of public corruption law.” x.com/ap/status/1805970513287667932?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nwA response to the decision. ”Supreme Court is simply making a cleaner path for corruption by both parties. We, the American people, thank them for allowing businesses, corporations and wealthy individuals to have a larger input in our legislative decisions than our votes do…yeah for us 🙄”
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jun 27, 2024 14:11:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jun 27, 2024 14:16:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jun 27, 2024 14:19:43 GMT
Washington Post.. “Breaking news: The Supreme Court put a hold on the Environmental Protection Agency’s major initiative to improve public health by reducing smog-forming pollution from power plants and factories that blow across state lines.” x.com/washingtonpost/status/1806329568061505946?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nwA response with a good question… ”wonder how many vacations and motor homes that cost big polluters?”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 27, 2024 14:28:58 GMT
Wait a minute. Another decision.. NARROWING the scope of public corruption law?? AP… ”BREAKING: The Supreme Court overturns the bribery conviction of a former Indiana mayor, narrowing the scope of public corruption law.” x.com/ap/status/1805970513287667932?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nwA response to the decision. ”Supreme Court is simply making a cleaner path for corruption by both parties. We, the American people, thank them for allowing businesses, corporations and wealthy individuals to have a larger input in our legislative decisions than our votes do…yeah for us 🙄” Add to this. So gratuities are tips after the fact, therefore not to be taxed??!??!?? The greater corrupted SCOTUS is free to receive more and more $$$$..
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jun 27, 2024 14:40:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jun 27, 2024 15:00:10 GMT
I guess this is decision # 4 Kyle Griffin… ”In a 6-3 decision, the conservative Supreme Court just stripped the Securities and Exchange Commission of a critical enforcement tool in fighting fraud cases. This decision — part of business-backed efforts to curb the power of federal agencies — will likely have far-reaching effects on how the SEC and other regulatory agencies take action against wrongdoing.” x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1806331665234444781?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nw
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Jun 27, 2024 15:01:16 GMT
Looks like opinions are going into next week. May not get the immunity decision until then.
|
|
pantsonfire
Drama Llama
Take a step back, evaluate what is important, and enjoy your life with those who you love.
Posts: 6,239
Jun 19, 2022 16:48:04 GMT
|
Post by pantsonfire on Jun 27, 2024 15:42:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 27, 2024 18:24:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jun 27, 2024 22:22:17 GMT
Paul Waldman use to be with the Washington Post. Now he has his own newsletter or whatever they call them.
Anyway he has some thoughts about one of the Supreme Court decisions.
”Corruption Is a Feature, Not a Bug”
PAUL WALDMAN JUN 27
,The conservative majority on the Supreme Court hates corruption. More precisely, they hate the fact that there is an idea known as “corruption,” and a general presumption that it’s bad. Turns out too many of us believe that public officials should not engage in self-dealing, use their offices for private advantage, or accept gifts from people who would like those officials to do certain things. In the better world the justices envision, the very idea would cease to exist, and judges or mayors or members of Congress would be free to enjoy the largesse of wealthy patrons without a bunch of do-gooder scolds criticizing them for it.
They have been working hard to bring that world into being, most recently with a decision they handed down on Wednesday. As repugnant as this pro-corruption project is on its own terms, it connects to something even larger, an anarchic turn in American conservatism. The warriors of today’s right see in nearly every societal institution something they want to either twist into a parodic version of what they claim it has become, or utterly destroy.
The pro-corruption court
In this latest case, Snyder v. U.S., the plaintiff was a former mayor in Indiana who was prosecuted under a federal anti-bribery law. Seems when he was mayor, Mr. Snyder bought some trucks for the town for $1.1 million from a trucking company, then showed up to the company demanding compensation; they gave him a check for $13,000.
Which seems pretty clearly to be a bribe, and that’s what the jury found. But no, said the six conservatives on the court: This was not a bribe but a “gratuity,” and the statute in question — even though it says that “rewards” for prior acts are illegal — doesn’t actually bar gratuities. If the official takes the money before performing the corrupt act, it’s illegal, but if he takes the money after, it’s all good. Writing for the conservatives, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained what a gratuity is: “A family gives a holiday tip to the mail carrier. Parents send an end-of-year gift basket to their child’s public school teacher. A college dean gives a college sweatshirt to a city council member who comes to speak at an event.” A sweatshirt or a check for $13,000, it’s all the same. Just a token of thanks for a job well done.
The court’s conservatives have been on a long crusade to make corruption legal; at every opportunity they’ve found ways to decide that certain kinds of corruption don’t count. They’ve narrowed the definition of it to the point where in order to be convicted, an official would practically have to make a YouTube video saying “Hey constituents, I just accepted a bribe, which I did for purposes of bribery; having taken the bribe, I’m now going to perform official acts in exchange for that bribe!”
It’s difficult to know precisely whether corruption has become more common as a result. But when you announce that public officials should be able to take shopping sprees from megadonors or accept a $13,000 “gratuity,” you’re sending a pretty clear message to the public about what goes on in government.
Undermining institutions is the point
Here’s part of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent in Snyder:
”Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions. Greed makes governments—at every level—less responsive, less efficient, and less trustworthy from the perspective of the communities they serve.”
This seems obvious. But here’s the thing: As far as conservatives are concerned, it’s a feature, not a bug.
I can’t say for sure whether the court’s six conservatives are hoping Americans lose faith in government. But I know this: The movement of which they are a part absolutely does. In fact, that is right at the core of contemporary conservatism. It seeks to undermine trust in the courts, in the executive branch, in Congress, in the K-12 education system, in universities, in the military, in the news media, in the election system, in public health agencies, in science — in short, in almost every important institution in American society with just a few exceptions (like the police). And faith in institutions has been falling:
You can’t lay that all at the feet of the right, but they have certainly been doing their part. So how did we get from the conservatism that wanted to conserve — that valued consistency, stability, and the governing institutions of society — to this radical incarnation that wants nothing more than to tear everything down? That’s a complicated question, but the short answer is that as American institutions have grown more liberal, whether in substance or symbolism — which many of them undoubtedly have — the more enraged conservatives became and the more attracted they grew to a principle-free and chaotic view of how those institutions should work.
This is where Donald Trump and his movement enter the picture. The kind of system the court is promoting, where there’s nothing wrong with a mayor taking a $13,000 “gratuity” for sending business a trucking company’s way, is something Donald Trump is not only all in favor of for his own corrupt reasons, but something he wants everyone to accept. As I’ve written before, his argument is never that he isn’t corrupt or guilty of all manner of misdeeds, but that everyone is.
What emerges out of that idea isn’t just hypocrisy, it’s something much more sinister. For instance, you might be alarmed that conservatives condemn the Biden Justice Department for allegedly targeting Trump for harassment, then quite explicitly say that when they get power they’re going to use the Justice Department to go after Trump’s enemies. The way to make sense of it is that they don’t believe it’s bad for the DoJ to be used as a weapon per se; it’s only bad if it’s done by Democrats. They have no interest in integrity in government institutions, and it doesn’t matter whether the public has faith in them. In fact, it’s better if they don’t, because then they won’t object when Republicans use them in the corrupt ways they falsely accuse Democrats of using them. And Trump will come right out and say it:
“When they start playing with your elections and trying to arrest their political opponent — I can do that too! If I win — which I hope we do because we’re not going to have a country — but if I win, I could then say, I don’t know: ‘This guy, this Democrat’s doing great. I don’t like the poll numbers. Attorney General, come down, arrest that guy, will you, please? Give him a subpoena! Indict him!’ That’s the end of him.”
The response when he says this kind of thing isn’t shock, it’s lusty cheering. And it’s not hypocrisy because Trump doesn’t even pretend that he is motivated by some kind of principle. Distrust of institutions becomes a weapon, one used to increase the sense of chaos that might propel Trump back to the White House. It’s a free-for-all, government can’t protect you, power is all that matters, and the only choice is to get behind a strongman. And whether it’s their intention or not, the conservatives on the Supreme Court are promoting that utterly debased view of government.”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 27, 2024 22:30:07 GMT
Gratuity = gift after the fact = tip after service therefore: no taxes!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 27, 2024 22:40:28 GMT
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,305
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Jun 27, 2024 23:26:15 GMT
I just read the entire opinion and no where did I see the words “nitrous oxide” used.
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Jun 27, 2024 23:42:38 GMT
We need a mad emoji not just a like because what the ever lovin }%^ on these. So just pay me the bribe after the fact and it’s ok we will just call it a gift snd then it’s ok. Let’s just set it up so it’s even easier to pay someone off. The rest to are just as bad.
|
|
|
Post by allison1954 on Jun 28, 2024 0:23:12 GMT
So a mandatory service charge is not taxable? That is required and not a gift
|
|
pantsonfire
Drama Llama
Take a step back, evaluate what is important, and enjoy your life with those who you love.
Posts: 6,239
Jun 19, 2022 16:48:04 GMT
|
Post by pantsonfire on Jun 28, 2024 14:22:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jun 28, 2024 14:31:24 GMT
I don’t understand this but it seems the people again by the Court…
Kyle Griffin…
”BREAKING:
In a ruling that will have massive implications for the power of federal agencies, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court just overruled the Chevron rule — the 1984 precedent that called for judges to give deference to federal agencies' interpretation of laws they administer. This is a big win for conservatives and business.”
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jun 28, 2024 14:35:21 GMT
Yup, we got screwed again. Mark Joseph… ”🚨The Supreme Court overrules Chevron deference, wiping out 40 years of precedent that required federal courts to defer to expert opinions of federal agencies. All three liberals dissent. This is a HUGE decision. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…” ”The Supreme Court's reversal of Chevron constitutes a major transfer of power from the executive branch to the judiciary, stripping federal agencies of significant discretion to interpret and enforce ambiguous regulations. Hard to overstate the impact of this seismic shift.” ”Today's ruling is a massive blow to the "administrative state," the collection of federal agencies that enforce laws involving the environment, food and drug safety, workers' rights, education, civil liberties, energy policy—the list is nearly endless. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…” ”In dissent, Justice Kagan says the conservative supermajority "disdains restraint, and grasps for power," making "a laughingstock" of stare decisis and producing "large-scale disruption" throughout the entire government. She is both furious and terrified. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf… “ ”Kagan: "In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. ... The majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar." supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…” x.com/mjs_dc/status/1806697816833528227?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nw
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jun 28, 2024 14:48:21 GMT
Kyle Griffin…
”.Justice Kagan dissenting on the Chevron issue: "The majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power." "In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country's administrative czar. It defends that move as one (suddenly) required by the (nearly 80-year-old) Administrative Procedure Act. But the Act makes no such demand. Today's decision is not one Congress directed. It is entirely the majority's choice."
|
|