Biden could by EXECUTIVE order postpone the election until this matter is settled specifically in the lower courts as the "high minded" SCOTUS delays justice. That would be fair.
So horrifying to witness the way the US Supreme Court has been distorted just as Trump planned it would protect him. Thank you for your insight, Heather. Your words help me maintain my equilibrium at this moment in history. I teach yoga and that helps too…
Am horrified that our highest court has "justices" who now contemplate abandoning the rule of law, but then there are those seated there who lied in order to obtain the seat. These are neither "just" nor honorable and now are threatening to abandon any pretense toward respect for the rule of law, our constitution, the guidance provided by our founders, and the will of the people. If the president should be immune from criminal prosecution for the murder of one "determined to be corrupt" me thinks the purge ought to begin right away with such corrupt "justices" and the blatently corrupt candidate they are acting to protect from criminal prosecution. But the very folks advancing such ideas are relying on the Biden administration to act within the rule of law. Those valuing the rule of law must strive to prevent the puppet of these authoritarians from gaining his objective. He would be disposed of as soon as he stops being useful to them — after getting them into power — his ineptitude would not be tolerated by the machine using him only as a dumb battering ram.
They are outnumbered if those respecting the rule of law close ranks in this time of mutual need.
Grateful for the toning down of the musical theme at the beginning of the podcast — much better...
The only reason SCOTUS was discussing immunity was because of tRump. The facts specific to this tRump case and why the court members were gathered, were not discussed as they were in the lower court.
A VERY LATE COMMENT POSTED ELSEWHERE (i.e., 'Daily Kos') FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH. Takes a while for things to penetrate the inner sanctum of my shrinking grey matter behind a thick Celtic cranium. 😉
As an erstwhile Republican and a conservative by temperament, I find this situation to be appalling. While the Court focussed on Fitzgerald versus Nixon, I kept remembering the United States of America versus Nixon (1974), a case and precedent that strikes my uneducated eye as more relevant.
🤔
That ruling squashed the first round of presidential immunity: executive privilege. This case strikes me as a ‘brand-extension’ strategy of President Nixon’s argument, uniformly rejected in his 1974 case. What turns my stomach is that . . .
🤢
. . . in the 1974 case, Justice Rehnquist recused himself owing to a prior role in the Nixon Admin.
. . . U.S. versus Nixon was as consequential a case as this one;
. . . the Court decided unanimously after deliberating just fifteen days.
. . . five of the eight Justices, who joined others in unanimity, had been appointed by Republican Presidents.
. . . President Nixon turned over the evidence that ended his presidency.
😢
None of these examples of placing principles ahead of politics are happening now nor are they likely to. Justices Thomas and Alito — questionable use of honorifics, here -- should be impeached and removed for a shocking level of corruption; not likely to occur.
✂️
Consequently, I sure wish that President Biden, if results favour the Democratic Party in November, would appoint two more Justices to the Supreme, for an eleven Justice head-count, starting with Attorney General Merrick Garland, a gentle and genteel man who honours his honorific.
⚖️
That would restore the one vote Republican majority that would be in place today had Senator McConnell and Trump had not packed the Court. Until then, we have to hope that Justices Roberts and Coney-Barrett — if neither Justices Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh — do the right thing by our republic, just(ice) as their Republican forebears did fifty years ago.
I am surprised no one has raised the issue of a constitutional amendment prohibiting a convicted felon from serving as president and eliminating the Electoral College
Newbie here! So, Now what? They couldn’t make it clearer. We have to become proactive with the news that Heather puts together and reports. Personally, I have been thinking about the HOW. How are they going to take over? The people who listen and read these posts are the truth seekers. Why else would you read this. It’s time to figure out how they are going to convince most of the people in the county that (insert evil plan here) is true or that nothing can be done about it. Most times large groups of people are controlled or opt in to believing something because of the fear in something be it real or fake. I have been thinking about the places we get news.
If the most democrat news source we have is MSNBC and its affiliated with stations that promised not to financially support Trump after Jan 6th but then showed up on a list of companies that broke that promise well then how much can we depend on them. I know Rachel Maddow isn’t going to start lying to us but she doesn’t own MSNBC. I mean the head of the RNC being a possible guest?? The leaders over there waiting for it to get messy before he pulls the idea. The new Meet the Press host leaning to the right along with Katy Tur leaning right. Idk
What if the Supremes are done with Trump but are worried about losing the powerful executive in the process?
Much talk about POTUS relying on OLC opinions and advice from the AG, and focus by Gorsuch about being told an act was illegal as test of being official or not.
Go to page 90 of the transcript - interesting exchange - Gorsuch pushes back on Dreeben when he says the President, having been told his act will illegal does it anyway.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: And then he could be prosecuted?
MR. DREEBEN: No.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: No? If he gets a negative opinion from the attorney general, he still wouldn't be prosecuted?
Thank you Heather for so eloquently expressing the frustration of all citizens who believe in the rule of law.
Thanks Heather 💙
Biden could by EXECUTIVE order postpone the election until this matter is settled specifically in the lower courts as the "high minded" SCOTUS delays justice. That would be fair.
So horrifying to witness the way the US Supreme Court has been distorted just as Trump planned it would protect him. Thank you for your insight, Heather. Your words help me maintain my equilibrium at this moment in history. I teach yoga and that helps too…
Am horrified that our highest court has "justices" who now contemplate abandoning the rule of law, but then there are those seated there who lied in order to obtain the seat. These are neither "just" nor honorable and now are threatening to abandon any pretense toward respect for the rule of law, our constitution, the guidance provided by our founders, and the will of the people. If the president should be immune from criminal prosecution for the murder of one "determined to be corrupt" me thinks the purge ought to begin right away with such corrupt "justices" and the blatently corrupt candidate they are acting to protect from criminal prosecution. But the very folks advancing such ideas are relying on the Biden administration to act within the rule of law. Those valuing the rule of law must strive to prevent the puppet of these authoritarians from gaining his objective. He would be disposed of as soon as he stops being useful to them — after getting them into power — his ineptitude would not be tolerated by the machine using him only as a dumb battering ram.
They are outnumbered if those respecting the rule of law close ranks in this time of mutual need.
Grateful for the toning down of the musical theme at the beginning of the podcast — much better...
The only reason SCOTUS was discussing immunity was because of tRump. The facts specific to this tRump case and why the court members were gathered, were not discussed as they were in the lower court.
Thanks for this. Are the majority of Supreme Court justices truly independent judges or political hacks doing one party's bidding? In a couple of months, we'll find out, I guess. https://jimbuie.substack.com/p/trumps-presidential-immunity-supreme
A VERY LATE COMMENT POSTED ELSEWHERE (i.e., 'Daily Kos') FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH. Takes a while for things to penetrate the inner sanctum of my shrinking grey matter behind a thick Celtic cranium. 😉
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/anniversary-of-united-states-v-nixon
As an erstwhile Republican and a conservative by temperament, I find this situation to be appalling. While the Court focussed on Fitzgerald versus Nixon, I kept remembering the United States of America versus Nixon (1974), a case and precedent that strikes my uneducated eye as more relevant.
🤔
That ruling squashed the first round of presidential immunity: executive privilege. This case strikes me as a ‘brand-extension’ strategy of President Nixon’s argument, uniformly rejected in his 1974 case. What turns my stomach is that . . .
🤢
. . . in the 1974 case, Justice Rehnquist recused himself owing to a prior role in the Nixon Admin.
. . . U.S. versus Nixon was as consequential a case as this one;
. . . the Court decided unanimously after deliberating just fifteen days.
. . . five of the eight Justices, who joined others in unanimity, had been appointed by Republican Presidents.
. . . President Nixon turned over the evidence that ended his presidency.
😢
None of these examples of placing principles ahead of politics are happening now nor are they likely to. Justices Thomas and Alito — questionable use of honorifics, here -- should be impeached and removed for a shocking level of corruption; not likely to occur.
✂️
Consequently, I sure wish that President Biden, if results favour the Democratic Party in November, would appoint two more Justices to the Supreme, for an eleven Justice head-count, starting with Attorney General Merrick Garland, a gentle and genteel man who honours his honorific.
⚖️
That would restore the one vote Republican majority that would be in place today had Senator McConnell and Trump had not packed the Court. Until then, we have to hope that Justices Roberts and Coney-Barrett — if neither Justices Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh — do the right thing by our republic, just(ice) as their Republican forebears did fifty years ago.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/4/29/2237479/-Trump-immunity-case-shows-why-we-need-to-reform-the-Supreme-Court
I am surprised no one has raised the issue of a constitutional amendment prohibiting a convicted felon from serving as president and eliminating the Electoral College
Newbie here! So, Now what? They couldn’t make it clearer. We have to become proactive with the news that Heather puts together and reports. Personally, I have been thinking about the HOW. How are they going to take over? The people who listen and read these posts are the truth seekers. Why else would you read this. It’s time to figure out how they are going to convince most of the people in the county that (insert evil plan here) is true or that nothing can be done about it. Most times large groups of people are controlled or opt in to believing something because of the fear in something be it real or fake. I have been thinking about the places we get news.
If the most democrat news source we have is MSNBC and its affiliated with stations that promised not to financially support Trump after Jan 6th but then showed up on a list of companies that broke that promise well then how much can we depend on them. I know Rachel Maddow isn’t going to start lying to us but she doesn’t own MSNBC. I mean the head of the RNC being a possible guest?? The leaders over there waiting for it to get messy before he pulls the idea. The new Meet the Press host leaning to the right along with Katy Tur leaning right. Idk
A thought.
What if the Supremes are done with Trump but are worried about losing the powerful executive in the process?
Much talk about POTUS relying on OLC opinions and advice from the AG, and focus by Gorsuch about being told an act was illegal as test of being official or not.
Go to page 90 of the transcript - interesting exchange - Gorsuch pushes back on Dreeben when he says the President, having been told his act will illegal does it anyway.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: And then he could be prosecuted?
MR. DREEBEN: No.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: No? If he gets a negative opinion from the attorney general, he still wouldn't be prosecuted?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_l5gm.pdf