Running SCOTUS thread

He'll tell them to pound rocks at Gitmo.

 

Gold star to anyone (from either side) who can name a case which was decided along party lines AGAINST what they were hoping for . . . yet being able to say, "Well, I was hoping they'd rule the other way, but by God they nailed it from a law and Constitutional standpoint."

 

You do realize we have a president in office who has done that several times, right?

 

Ugh.

 

Biden’s first official act under this ruling is to have Trump killed as a matter of national security. Then start rounding the rest of the traitors up; a D-10 will dig a nice mass grave for them.

 

If Beden does not immediately start to run against the Supreme Court his advisors should be flushed for malpractice.

 

Example?

 

Thanks again, Ruth

 

It's a f*ckin' outrage that Donald F*ckin' Trump (who wouldn't know the difference between Thurgood Marshall and Sarah Marshall) appointed almost as many SCOTUS justices (three) as Biden's THREE most recent Dem predecessors (four). Poor Jimmy got zero. Even Ford got one. Crook Nixon got four!

 

Many justices discuss this all the time.
Here's one example. Look specifically at around the 12-13 minute mark (the whole video is great), but Google will find many examples. Barret says she tells her clerks that they need to produce a list of cases that were correctly decided where they dislike the result and vice versa.

I haven't read the decision, but I'm surprised that everyone who is outraged that it is providing protection for the criminal Trump as a former president is not considering that this will also check President Trump from jailing former President Biden. And if your response is that Trump actually committed crimes, that's not very useful.

 

Rogue court

Bump stocks for everyone!

 

My biggest gripe is them punting on what is "official duties" and what isn't. I agree there needs to be a distinction, but not actually saying what that distinction is bothers me. And the fact they now force this issue to play out in the lower courts, if Trump wins, it's all moot. He pardons himself/ends the federal prosecutions against himself and we don't get the answer. It isn't hard to say there is no immunity for attempts to subvert the electoral process when legal remedies exist. So Trump could still be prosecuted.

And this doesn't stop Trump from prosecuting Biden. He just needs to make some bullshit argument that Biden was doing something that didn't involve being president. For example, helping his son with foreign deals or the like.