“I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S. Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act,’” lawyer Marc Elias, whose firm defends democratic election laws, wrote today on social media. He added: “I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”
I have heard it said that all the judges are intimidated by the failed former president. And I hear that some Supreme Court judges entertain the possibility that the actions of the then president were within the scope of his official duties, on J6.
Really? Well then , if you are intimidated maybe it is time to shake that feeling. You accepted the appointment to the bench and now the going gets tough and you are afraid to uphold, protect and defend the constitution? You are allowing yourself to be bullied by a defendant and his lawless followers. Just get over it and do your job.
January 6 was not within the scope of the presidents duties because telling a big lie and then inciting a mob to forcefully halt the election procedures, just isn’t presidential at all. It is not credible that a justice of the highest court in the land believes that the former president acted in good faith. You know this. Just stop bowing down to the defendant that keeps violating his terms of release. Have you no sense of duty? Have you no respect for yourself and the law?
What we saw today was the setting up of a legal basis for a fascist takeover.
Guys, one more time, please, I beg of you: do not ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever trust these people for a second. I'm not saying don't ever expect them to do the right thing, I'm saying always expect them to do the most wrong thing. If they ever occasionally appear do the right thing, it is a distraction for the many overwhelmingly wrong things they are about to do, on top of the infinitely wrong things they have already done.
Look, I get it. Everyone here is either a lifelong liberal or a *true* conservative. Most of us are educated, and all of us are open-minded and empathetic. Our first and final instinct is to attempt to see the best in people, give the benefit of the doubt, give credit where due, believe people can change, never give up on finding common ground, etc etc etc. My advice: give that up real quick! At least when it comes to people who have clearly demonstrated they do not mean their fellow citizens well. It is your Achilles heel, it is being exploited and will continue to be exploited.
Who CAN you have faith in? **US!!!** As it stands at this moment, the balance of power in our country still must answer to We the People, and we in the pro-truth, pro-intellect, pro-democracy community are the most engaged and determined group imaginable. We have been winning, and will continue to win the good fight if we stay engaged and determined. No one else will save us, but we don't need anyone to.
If this stands, at least it will be easy for historians like HCR and myself to date the exact day of the fall of the American Republic: April 25, 2024.
If the Democrats manage to keep the White House and the Senate, and regain the House, I hope the first order of business is to do three things: 1) Eradicate the filibuster; 2) Provide one Supreme Court Justice for each of the 13 Federal Appellate Circuits; and 3) Fix Citizens United; corporations are not persons. We need our own Project 2025 to stem the authoritarian corruption of our democratic foundations.
"Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife, Ginni, participated in that effort, did not recuse himself from today’s hearing, and the court did not object to his presence."
Nor did those hand picked by the person whose fate is under discussion, but of course, that was the point.
I continue to be surprised that I am surprised. Than you Heather for giving a sane respective on the insanity. I learned elsewhere for the first time today about something called the clear statement rule. In the immunity case today Brett Kavanaugh brought up the idea that a president might be immune from prosecution unless a law explicitly states that such a law applies to the president. I’m thinking everything from stealing kiddies piggy banks to assassination to a coup is immune since so far as I know no law against such things actually cites the president. I find it appalling that the so-called originalists seem to follow this line of jurisprudence and yet I’m reasonably confident that all the framers of the constitution were trying to ensure the US didn’t end up with our own version of King George III.
The Supreme Court's apparent willingness to entertain arguments that would grant presidents extreme immunity undermines our democracy. By placing a president above the law, it challenges the foundational principle that no one is immune from legal accountability, risking the descent of our democratic system into unchecked presidential power. This sets a dangerous precedent that erodes public trust and the rule of law, foundational to our democratic system.
Thank you, Heather. What happened today at SCOTUS is horrifying. It is more important than ever that we do everything in our powers to get out the blue vote in overwhelming numbers in November. The Extreme Court has moved us perilously close to the edge of the precipice of losing our democracy
When you hear Gorsuch saying “I’m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.", we are feeling the demise of democracy. It brings tears to my eyes. It's like the crime of hurting/killing someone with a knife and being more worried about the condition of the knife, was it rusted?, than the crime committed.
By the time this case is complete, with its acceptance of assassination of opponents (and judges?) as a legitimate political tool and its (nearly) explicit political purpose to protect Donald Trump through delay, if it is not the case now, the Court, as it is currently composed, will have destroyed its credibility. One more deteriorating American institution.
“It cannot be that a president of the United States can attempt to steal an election and seize power but our justice system is incapable of bringing him to trial before the next election four years later,” she wrote. Liz Cheney. It cannot be Liz? Apparently it can be. I am as shocked as she seems to be. Is this how good-hearted well-meaning Germans felt as they watched in real time as Hitler took over their nation? I once felt that the SCOTUS was the ultimate back stop. If there is something wrong going on, and it can be applealed legally, ultimately they will make it right. That notion is destroyed, utterly. Apparently. Never say never perhaps. It is theoretically possible that we get a decision quickly that agrees with simple sanity. But that seems exceedingly unlikely - much more likely is that SCOTUS will have aided and abbetted an indicted criminal, scuttling the criminal trial that would hold him to justice. And BTW - give Cannon the confidence that she will prevail in her own efforts to scuttle the other federal case down in Florida. We are living in dangerous times.
Justice Kagan managed to articulate the central question. Good for her!
Much of the other discussion in today's courtroom session should have been made offline in a different venue. I read about parts of that discussion in an article by ABC News, and the entire conversation made me angrier and sadder by the minute.
In that article, several items jumped out at me. Among them, aside from legitimizing political asassination, was BeerBro's assertion that Ford pardoning Nixon is considered nowadays to have been wise (you weasel Kavanaugh - sneaking that in is like telegraphing your punches!!).
Worse yet was that the Trump lawyer spoke from both sides of his mouth, saying that a president COULD be held accountable for crimes committed in office, but only if they were impeached and convicted by the Senate first. You can't have it both ways, can you? Is impeachment a political or a criminal process? Pick one and stick with it!
What this suggests to me is that if the US is to continue as initially conceived, it will one day become necessary to redefine the job of president and redistribute many of its responsibilities.
We're still dealing with the traditionl mindset that was established back when it seemed reasonable for a successful general to become a king and ruler. We're finding out that for a single Head of State to hold the ultimate authority over too many things is corrosive. An imperial presidency must never be allowed to become authoritarian, but the signs indicate today that this is exactly where the Trumpists would take us.
"“I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S. Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act,’” lawyer Marc Elias, whose firm defends democratic election laws, wrote today on social media. He added: “I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”
The SCOTUS is hardly the only place where our democracy was being shredded today.
Who is this person whom the most corrupt court in the land takes seriously?
Lying sleazebag. Cheat. Grifter. Con man. Traitor to America.
Suck-up to dictators. Rigger of medieval theocrats to the nation’s highest court so individual states may arrogate, dictate women’s personal choices.
Racist. Vilifier of refugees. Stoker of violence. Stochastic terrorist. Purveyor of hate, divisiveness.
Thief of American archival documents. Violator of the Constitution’s emoluments clause. Violator of the Constitution’s insurrection clause.
Mocker of the disabled. Insulter of armed service personnel. Serial rapist and braggart of grabbing women in most personal of places.
Waddling obese. Orange, bronze make-up layered, encrusted, caked on his fat, fat, greasy face.
I have heard it said that all the judges are intimidated by the failed former president. And I hear that some Supreme Court judges entertain the possibility that the actions of the then president were within the scope of his official duties, on J6.
Really? Well then , if you are intimidated maybe it is time to shake that feeling. You accepted the appointment to the bench and now the going gets tough and you are afraid to uphold, protect and defend the constitution? You are allowing yourself to be bullied by a defendant and his lawless followers. Just get over it and do your job.
January 6 was not within the scope of the presidents duties because telling a big lie and then inciting a mob to forcefully halt the election procedures, just isn’t presidential at all. It is not credible that a justice of the highest court in the land believes that the former president acted in good faith. You know this. Just stop bowing down to the defendant that keeps violating his terms of release. Have you no sense of duty? Have you no respect for yourself and the law?
What we saw today was the setting up of a legal basis for a fascist takeover.
Guys, one more time, please, I beg of you: do not ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever trust these people for a second. I'm not saying don't ever expect them to do the right thing, I'm saying always expect them to do the most wrong thing. If they ever occasionally appear do the right thing, it is a distraction for the many overwhelmingly wrong things they are about to do, on top of the infinitely wrong things they have already done.
Look, I get it. Everyone here is either a lifelong liberal or a *true* conservative. Most of us are educated, and all of us are open-minded and empathetic. Our first and final instinct is to attempt to see the best in people, give the benefit of the doubt, give credit where due, believe people can change, never give up on finding common ground, etc etc etc. My advice: give that up real quick! At least when it comes to people who have clearly demonstrated they do not mean their fellow citizens well. It is your Achilles heel, it is being exploited and will continue to be exploited.
Who CAN you have faith in? **US!!!** As it stands at this moment, the balance of power in our country still must answer to We the People, and we in the pro-truth, pro-intellect, pro-democracy community are the most engaged and determined group imaginable. We have been winning, and will continue to win the good fight if we stay engaged and determined. No one else will save us, but we don't need anyone to.
If this stands, at least it will be easy for historians like HCR and myself to date the exact day of the fall of the American Republic: April 25, 2024.
If the Democrats manage to keep the White House and the Senate, and regain the House, I hope the first order of business is to do three things: 1) Eradicate the filibuster; 2) Provide one Supreme Court Justice for each of the 13 Federal Appellate Circuits; and 3) Fix Citizens United; corporations are not persons. We need our own Project 2025 to stem the authoritarian corruption of our democratic foundations.
The right-wing justices on the Court are betraying the rule of law in the US.
"Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife, Ginni, participated in that effort, did not recuse himself from today’s hearing, and the court did not object to his presence."
Nor did those hand picked by the person whose fate is under discussion, but of course, that was the point.
I continue to be surprised that I am surprised. Than you Heather for giving a sane respective on the insanity. I learned elsewhere for the first time today about something called the clear statement rule. In the immunity case today Brett Kavanaugh brought up the idea that a president might be immune from prosecution unless a law explicitly states that such a law applies to the president. I’m thinking everything from stealing kiddies piggy banks to assassination to a coup is immune since so far as I know no law against such things actually cites the president. I find it appalling that the so-called originalists seem to follow this line of jurisprudence and yet I’m reasonably confident that all the framers of the constitution were trying to ensure the US didn’t end up with our own version of King George III.
CORRUPTION
1. deceit
2. fraud
3. malfeasance
4. embezzlement
5. bribery
( fascism, get the picture?)
The Supreme Court's apparent willingness to entertain arguments that would grant presidents extreme immunity undermines our democracy. By placing a president above the law, it challenges the foundational principle that no one is immune from legal accountability, risking the descent of our democratic system into unchecked presidential power. This sets a dangerous precedent that erodes public trust and the rule of law, foundational to our democratic system.
Thank you, Heather. What happened today at SCOTUS is horrifying. It is more important than ever that we do everything in our powers to get out the blue vote in overwhelming numbers in November. The Extreme Court has moved us perilously close to the edge of the precipice of losing our democracy
When you hear Gorsuch saying “I’m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.", we are feeling the demise of democracy. It brings tears to my eyes. It's like the crime of hurting/killing someone with a knife and being more worried about the condition of the knife, was it rusted?, than the crime committed.
That justice, Thomas did not recuse himself is a Crime of and by itself
By the time this case is complete, with its acceptance of assassination of opponents (and judges?) as a legitimate political tool and its (nearly) explicit political purpose to protect Donald Trump through delay, if it is not the case now, the Court, as it is currently composed, will have destroyed its credibility. One more deteriorating American institution.
“It cannot be that a president of the United States can attempt to steal an election and seize power but our justice system is incapable of bringing him to trial before the next election four years later,” she wrote. Liz Cheney. It cannot be Liz? Apparently it can be. I am as shocked as she seems to be. Is this how good-hearted well-meaning Germans felt as they watched in real time as Hitler took over their nation? I once felt that the SCOTUS was the ultimate back stop. If there is something wrong going on, and it can be applealed legally, ultimately they will make it right. That notion is destroyed, utterly. Apparently. Never say never perhaps. It is theoretically possible that we get a decision quickly that agrees with simple sanity. But that seems exceedingly unlikely - much more likely is that SCOTUS will have aided and abbetted an indicted criminal, scuttling the criminal trial that would hold him to justice. And BTW - give Cannon the confidence that she will prevail in her own efforts to scuttle the other federal case down in Florida. We are living in dangerous times.
Justice Kagan managed to articulate the central question. Good for her!
Much of the other discussion in today's courtroom session should have been made offline in a different venue. I read about parts of that discussion in an article by ABC News, and the entire conversation made me angrier and sadder by the minute.
see: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/10-key-moments-trumps-supreme-court-immunity-hearing/story?id=109635973
In that article, several items jumped out at me. Among them, aside from legitimizing political asassination, was BeerBro's assertion that Ford pardoning Nixon is considered nowadays to have been wise (you weasel Kavanaugh - sneaking that in is like telegraphing your punches!!).
Worse yet was that the Trump lawyer spoke from both sides of his mouth, saying that a president COULD be held accountable for crimes committed in office, but only if they were impeached and convicted by the Senate first. You can't have it both ways, can you? Is impeachment a political or a criminal process? Pick one and stick with it!
What this suggests to me is that if the US is to continue as initially conceived, it will one day become necessary to redefine the job of president and redistribute many of its responsibilities.
We're still dealing with the traditionl mindset that was established back when it seemed reasonable for a successful general to become a king and ruler. We're finding out that for a single Head of State to hold the ultimate authority over too many things is corrosive. An imperial presidency must never be allowed to become authoritarian, but the signs indicate today that this is exactly where the Trumpists would take us.
"“I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S. Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act,’” lawyer Marc Elias, whose firm defends democratic election laws, wrote today on social media. He added: “I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”
The SCOTUS is hardly the only place where our democracy was being shredded today.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2024/04/26/armed-crackdowns-student-protesters-evoke-vietnam-era?mc_cid=bcfe258017&mc_eid=2d13197685