SCOTUS Rulings

[GermanSuplex]

Bought and paid for. While they rage about Hunter Biden, here’s what’s going on in the Supreme Court.

Clarence Thomas’s $267,230 R.V. and the Friend Who Financed It (Published 2023)

The vehicle is a key part of the justice’s just-folks persona. It’s also a luxury motor coach that was funded by someone else’s money.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Only 5 Supreme Court Justices Believe In The Supremacy Clause And That's A Real Fricking Problem - Above the Law

The right wing of the Supreme Court is playing a dangerous game.

abovethelaw.com

TL;DR

Even when the constitution and long standing precedent is crystal clear this Supreme Court still gets descenders because it doesn’t fit their agenda. And because that’s the entire reason they didn’t bother to explain themselves. It’s beyond word salad attempts.

 

[Yoused]

Fuck

I mean, seriously, fuck.

The mayor of Portage Indiana was convicted on a bribery charge, for taking $13K after awarding a contract to buy 5 new garbage trucks. But SCotUS overturned the conviction on the basis of the fact that the local statute defines "bribery" as money provided in advance of the action but does not mention money given after the fact, so it was not actually bribery by the letter of the law. Federal law covers money given after the fact, but this was not a federal matter, so it was not covered by federal law.

I mean, come on. We have judges and juries to handle vagueness of statute. These RW justices seem to be just total automatons.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Trump is having a great week. Forget the actual facts of the matter, he's just going to claim victory and use this as fuel for his stolen election lies. His vigor - nevermind the absence of a brain and his lying - is what people see.

Supreme Court delivers blow to power of federal agencies, overturning 40-year-old precedent

The important 1984 precedent gave federal bureaucrats flexibility to interpret the law when the language is unclear.

www.nbcnews.com

Supreme Court rules for Jan. 6 rioter challenging obstruction charge

The closely watched case focuses on a charge that former President Donald Trump also faces in his election interference case.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Huntn]

We’re doomed… Ok, Nov will tell.

Fuck

I mean, seriously, fuck.

The mayor of Portage Indiana was convicted on a bribery charge, for taking $13K after awarding a contract to buy 5 new garbage trucks. But SCotUS overturned the conviction on the basis of the fact that the local statute defines "bribery" as money provided in advance of the action but does not mention money given after the fact, so it was not actually bribery by the letter of the law. Federal law covers money given after the fact, but this was not a federal matter, so it was not covered by federal law.

I mean, come on. We have judges and juries to handle vagueness of statute. These RW justices seem to be just total automatons.

Fucking SCOTUS, off the rails and down over the embankment, and then Trump doing his shit show on CNN.

 

[Eric]

So basically, all the lower court has to do is determine that Jan 6 was an official act and Trump walks scot-free? @Cmaier

Loading…

www.npr.org

Supreme Court says Trump has absolute immunity for core acts only

 

[Renzatic]

So basically, all the lower court has to do is determine that Jan 6 was an official act and Trump walks scot-free? @Cmaier

Loading…

www.npr.org

Reasonably, it'd cover any act that's within the scope of presidential powers as defined by the Constitution.

In practice? Who the hell knows.

 

[Eric]

Reasonably, it'd cover any act that's within the scope of presidential powers as defined by the Constitution.

In practice? Who the hell knows.

Sounds to me like Biden can issue and EO for a drone to take out Mar-a-Lago witn zero consequences.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Biggest issue is the delay. It sets up a whole mini-trial (or a dozen of them) before the trial.

What's next? This is a joke.

 

[Eric]

Biggest issue is the delay. It sets up a whole mini-trial (or a dozen of them) before the trial.

What's next? This is a joke.

All I can say is as one who was ready to give up on this election I will now be fighting for Biden even if he's hanging on his last ounce of memory loss. If they wanted to embolden Democrats they've made the right move.

 

[Roller]

Biggest issue is the delay. It sets up a whole mini-trial (or a dozen of them) before the trial.

What's next? This is a joke.

The most important immediate effect is the delay in Trump's trials, which was the goal of the conservative justices. If Trump wins, that's pretty much it for democracy and the rule of law. If Biden wins, fixing the SCOTUS would require expanding it, which Biden has opposed. It would also would need Congress to go along, unlikely if the Republicans hold the House and/or capture the Senate. Alternatively, if a few SCOTUS justices were to die in the next couple months, they could be replaced by a majority Senate vote, assuming people like Manchin and Sinema went along.

 

[Cmaier]

So basically, all the lower court has to do is determine that Jan 6 was an official act and Trump walks scot-free? @Cmaier

Loading…

www.npr.org

Haven’t read the whole opinion, but from summaries i’ve seen, the opinion was more or less what everyone thought the law was.

 

[rdrr]

Trump is a clear and present danger to democracy. Now its up to POTUS to act.

 

[shadow puppet]

What the hey?!

 

[GermanSuplex]

All I can say is as one who was ready to give up on this election I will now be fighting for Biden even if he's hanging on his last ounce of memory loss. If they wanted to embolden Democrats they've made the right move.

Hopefully this doesn’t play well with moderates and independents. This is not the victory Trumpers think it is, especially if he loses.

I’ll admit, the ruling is not as bad as I’d thought it would be, but republicans are pretending as if this already means every case against him is dead. The Florida case, for instance, is almost entirely based on conduct that took place out of office. But they’re just banging the drum that this is “complete and total immunity”. It’s definitely not.

No, imagine this Supreme Court with Thomas and Alito retiring, to be placed with Hawley and Cruz-like judges.

Trump will probably break more laws to secure the election, hoping he wins. Americans are either going to vote smart or vote dumb, these things have a way of bouncing back on the GOP. There’s nothing that says we won’t have a corrupt democrat president in the future, and these people are huffing too much Cheeto dust if they think Biden is a corrupt president prosecuting his opponents. Which, apparently, may now be an official act!

 

[GermanSuplex]

Haven’t read the whole opinion, but from summaries i’ve seen, the opinion was more or less what everyone thought the law was.

That’s kind of how I took it… in simpleton terms, it means they have to determine what an official act is, which is going to make these kind of cases take longer. So Trump could order a hit using the military, but then a court would have to determine whether that was an official act or not - if being optimistic, a court could determine - based on circumstances - that something on the surface may be “official” (president ordering the military to do something, for instance), but they could determine whether or not the act was part of his duties - ordering the military to take out a wanted terrorist would be official duties, taking out a political opponent they may rule falls outside of his scope.

That’s how I’m seeing it, though could be totally wrong.

 

[Renzatic]

Sounds to me like Biden can issue and EO for a drone to take out Mar-a-Lago witn zero consequences.

Hey, as long as it's an official act.

 

[shadow puppet]

Sounds to me like Biden can issue and EO for a drone to take out Mar-a-Lago witn zero consequences.

Maybe this is why "King Joe" is trending on Twitter (I still refuse to call it "X").

 

[shadow puppet]

This is why we cannot just not vote Joe and give Trump a vote. Otherwise, be prepared to live with your choices (this coming from someone who wishes the Dems could find a way for Joe to step down but only if it's someone who can defeat Trump).

 

[Renzatic]

This is why we cannot just not vote Joe and give Trump a vote.

Honestly, I think there's a little more to the ruling than that. There aren't many statutes or constitutional provisions that would allow a president to do whatever the hell he wants.

I'm leaning more towards Cmaier's take on the matter. It's a clarification for how the law was already interpreted to begin with.

...though, with that said, I'm sure we'll still see certain individuals still try to pull some bullshit, and claim it's their presidential duty.