What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS: sponsored by Harlan Crow

Biden should dissolve the Supreme Court and appoint new ones.

After all, this court just said he can.
 
SJHovey said:
My two cents.

First, we were never going to see a decision that I'm sure many of you here, and others around the country, wanted to see -- that Trump has zero immunity associated with being POTUS. A POTUS is certainly entitled to some immunity, for certain things associated with serving as President.

Once we accept that as a basic premise, which we must, then this case just becomes like all of the other immunity cases out there. The courts must examine how far the immunity extends, and the fact finders have to decide whether the facts fit within that protection.

We probably have two hundred years of case law involving both civil and criminal immunity for state government officials and federal government officials. It just so happens that until now we don't really have any case law involving immunity associated with the POTUS because, fortunately, we haven't seen cases where it's even necessary to consider prosecuting the President for something.

But I'm sure there is a body of case law out there, perhaps fairly small, involving the prosecution of federal judges or other elected federal officials, and a larger body of case law involving the prosecution of state elected officials or judges.

The courts will sort it out, starting at the trial court level, and working its way up to the Circuits.

Trying to figure out what constitutes the course and scope of your duties, and then whether the facts demonstrate you were in that course and scope, is not a magic trick. It's done every day in this country.
Click to expand...

Except immunity is normally a civil litigation construct. There are very, very limited immunities from criminal prosecution. Diplomats have it. Actions by legislators while on the floor of the legislature. Sovereigns have it. That's basically it.

The concept of absolute criminal immunity for anything deemed an official act, which only the courts can determine, is absurd. The president isn't a king; we fought a war for that 250 years ago. But now 6 black-robed politicians say that's fine.

Fark that. Roberts cemented his legacy as the worst Chief Justice since Taney.
 
unofan said:
Except immunity is normally a civil litigation construct. There are very, very limited immunities from criminal prosecution. Diplomats have it. Actions by legislators while on the floor of the legislature. Sovereigns have it. That's basically it.

The concept of absolute criminal immunity for anything deemed an official act, which only the courts can determine, is absurd. The president isn't a king; we fought a war for that 250 years ago. But now 6 black-robed politicians say that's fine.

Fark that. Roberts cemented his legacy as the worst Chief Justice since Taney.
Click to expand...

The reason the concept of limited criminal immunity for a President in the performance of his or her duties is so foreign to us is that, thankfully, up to now, we really haven't had to consider it.

But think about it. Do we want some prosecutor in Texas trying to prosecute Biden for something related to failure to keep the borders secure. Or for conspiring to commit murder if he plans some military operation with the Joint Chiefs? I don't. You know the only reason that hasn't been done is that it has been assumed that you don't get to prosecute a President for things that he does as part of his job, some of which may be fairly distasteful.

Personally, I don't believe that much of what Trump is accused of doing can legitimately be included in a definition of his "job" as President, but as I said, that will be sorted out.

Sorry, killing a political rival or raping a pornstar or whatever other silly example people want to come up with is not part of his core duties as President, and will never be found to be such. Of course, there will always be gray areas, but that's what courts and fact finders are for.
 
SJHovey said:
The reason the concept of limited criminal immunity for a President in the performance of his or her duties is so foreign to us is that, thankfully, up to now, we really haven't had to consider it.

But think about it. Do we want some prosecutor in Texas trying to prosecute Biden for something related to failure to keep the borders secure. Or for conspiring to commit murder if he plans some military operation with the Joint Chiefs? I don't. You know the only reason that hasn't been done is that it has been assumed that you don't get to prosecute a President for things that he does as part of his job, some of which may be fairly distasteful.

Personally, I don't believe that much of what Trump is accused of doing can legitimately be included in a definition of his "job" as President, but as I said, that will be sorted out.

Sorry, killing a political rival or raping a pornstar or whatever other silly example people want to come up with is not part of his core duties as President, and will never be found to be such. Of course, there will always be gray areas, but that's what courts and fact finders are for.
Click to expand...

So was Donnie siccing his followers on the Capitol on Jan. 6 part of "his job"? Is claiming the election was stolen an official act?

Jesus, just keep polishing the knob.
 
rufus said:
So was Donnie siccing his followers on the Capitol on Jan. 6 part of "his job"? Is claiming the election was stolen an official act?

Jesus, just keep polishing the knob.
Click to expand...

I think Hovey said he personally did not think much of what he is accused of doing was personal.
 
burd said:
I think Hovey said he personally did not think much of what he is accused of doing was personal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can’t claim to know the contents of all of the indictments verbatim, but I haven’t heard a lot that sounds like the tasks he’s charged with performing under the constitution. But like I said, there are always gray areas.
 
And by the way, I have zero objection to any of the efforts to prosecute him, and have never posted anything here to the contrary.
 
Chief Justice is quoted as saying his liberal colleagues are fear mongering in their dissent.

I guess he was out of the country during January 6th.
 
First Time said:
I guess handy for me where it lies is that he will push it and push every single ruling to scotus and then scotus will declare that his acts are official...that is where I think all of this is headed.
This ruling to me says that with the court the way it is now he can push anything he wants to scotus and his judges will rule in his favor as an official act
Click to expand...

I am not there...yet. And by the time we are he will either be in office and we are screwed, or he is out of office and it won't matter in the long run. (for him)

My fear is the future not the present so don't think I am not wary of where this is headed. But short of packing the court next January I am not sure what can be done...

But trust me I get it and am not criticizing your worries in any way.
 
Swansong said:
John Roberts joined SCOTUS in 2005, and the Federal bench in 2001. He did "advise" Jeb Bush on the case, but he had no judicial or decision-making authority.
Click to expand...

I never once said he was a judge in Bush v. Gore. He (like many of the Cons on the Court) were all involved though and on the wrong side.
 
SJHovey said:
My two cents.

First, we were never going to see a decision that I'm sure many of you here, and others around the country, wanted to see -- that Trump has zero immunity associated with being POTUS. A POTUS is certainly entitled to some immunity, for certain things associated with serving as President.

Once we accept that as a basic premise, which we must, then this case just becomes like all of the other immunity cases out there. The courts must examine how far the immunity extends, and the fact finders have to decide whether the facts fit within that protection.

We probably have two hundred years of case law involving both civil and criminal immunity for state government officials and federal government officials. It just so happens that until now we don't really have any case law involving immunity associated with the POTUS because, fortunately, we haven't seen cases where it's even necessary to consider prosecuting the President for something.

But I'm sure there is a body of case law out there, perhaps fairly small, involving the prosecution of federal judges or other elected federal officials, and a larger body of case law involving the prosecution of state elected officials or judges.

The courts will sort it out, starting at the trial court level, and working its way up to the Circuits.

Trying to figure out what constitutes the course and scope of your duties, and then whether the facts demonstrate you were in that course and scope, is not a magic trick. It's done every day in this country.
Click to expand...

Literally none of this is true. You are 100% pulling it out of your azz. There is nothing in case law or the Constitution that grants that immunity. They made it up...and you are accepting it because it backs up your world view.

You are taking away the ability of the court and the people to hold him accountable. You know, the whole checks and balances thing.

If the Founders wanted the President to have immunity they would have written it in. Some tried and failed. Just friggin stop.
 
With all of these court wins the GOP keeps getting, I think they’re going to learn they’re the track greyhounds who’ve caught the rabbits. So long as Democrats make a good showing come November, a real push towards long-term justice will get in full swing. The GOP has been exposed and they’ve left the paper trail.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Chief Justice is quoted as saying his liberal colleagues are fear mongering in their dissent.

I guess he was out of the country during January 6th.
Click to expand...

CNN wants you to know Biden is old...yeah I turned them on and that is all they were talking about.
 
St. Clown said:
With all of these court wins the GOP keeps getting, I think they’re going to learn they’re the track greyhounds who’ve caught the rabbits. So long as Democrats make a good showing come November, a real push towards long-term justice will get in full swing. The GOP has been exposed and they’ve left the paper trail.
Click to expand...

In theory, but it takes more than a good showing. Biden has to win full stop. If Trump wins it won't matter if the Dems control Congress he will defy them and dissolve them because they can't stop him unless the SC says he can't. And then they can't stop him from doing the same to him. Imperial Leaders don't bow to the will of laws they don't agree with or checks against their power even if they are official. Trump will have the ability to get rid of them all...hell Biden can do that right now.

Hell, you could now make the argument that since you need a "high crime and misdemeanor" to be impeached...that Impeachment has been neutered. If the President is legally immune from official acts then you could, in theory, only impeach a President for unofficial acts. If it is official it is immune, and if it is immune then how can be impeached for it? I dont personally by that but I guarantee the Court would hear it out.

The only good that will come of this is short term...when Chutkin holds her hearing (because The Court said there needs to be one) and Jack Smith puts everyone under oath and puts it all on the record. Not in quiet, not some committee with no teeth in Congress...just a factual accounting of every crime committed and if the voters still dont make the right choice then America gets what it deserves. I hope the Anti-Biden Dems are watching...The Court just gave you ever reason to change your mind.

I am not kidding by the way when I say Biden needs to explicitly say he is going to pack the Court. Go FDR on the bit.
 
Jimjamesak said:
Order the military to kill them. Clearly they’re a threat to national security.
Click to expand...

You're obviously kidding (I am assuming). But I'd certainly consider something drastic if I was president on July 1, 2024. America is almost dead and too many people, Biden included, are watching it die and not doing enough to stop it. Most are doing nothing. Our country is on its last legs. Between now and election day Biden and every powerful democrat should be doing nothing but warning Americans tha their democracy is literally being destroyed by republicans. Pull no more punches and if voters don't want to buy it, we're fuc ked anyway. I feel sorry for young people. People who have been old enough to vote during the 21st century have fuc ked this place up beyond all recognition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top