2024 SCOTUS Rulings Thread

[BDKJMU]

Yeah, because they’re aren’t MSR’s that shoot .22LR, 5.45, .308/7.62, or as carbines with 9mm, .45ACP, etc..

Anyway, your anti 2A fantasy has zero chance of happening in our lifetimes, but keep crying about..

you're cute when you're mad

You have nothing except to display stuck on stupid.

[UNI88]

At very close range, a much bigger, slower JHP round from a handgun (semi auto or revolver) would do worse. Or from a 12 gauge shooting 00 buck..

About 90% of all lethal shootings are done with handguns. Only about 10% longguns, and those black and scary looking MSRs are only about 1/3 of that. But that’s what gets all the attention of all the anti gun whiney little bitches..

I disagree, having watched an M-16 blow right through a telephone pole at close range. They would do that in basic because at the time there was still a lot of people spreading the word that the rifle jammed easily and was unreliable in combat. According to the Drills the problem was not the M-16 it was the surplus powder for the M-14 they used in an attempt to save money, which was why they did the demonstration. You may recall from your Physics class that kinetic energy increases by the square of the velocity (mv^2/2). You can find photos of the ballistic medium used to simulate human flesh that show the kind damage done. The odds are good that some of those kids at Parkland and Uvalde were in more than one piece. Not to mention the suicide mission of expecting some deputy sheriff to confront an AR with a pistol.

Can we get back to talking about Presidential immunity and whether our conservative judges will stick to their originalist principles or will they signal that they only self-identify as originalists?

[GannonFan]

I disagree, having watched an M-16 blow right through a telephone pole at close range. They would do that in basic because at the time there was still a lot of people spreading the word that the rifle jammed easily and was unreliable in combat. According to the Drills the problem was not the M-16 it was the surplus powder for the M-14 they used in an attempt to save money, which was why they did the demonstration. You may recall from your Physics class that kinetic energy increases by the square of the velocity (mv^2/2). You can find photos of the ballistic medium used to simulate human flesh that show the kind damage done. The odds are good that some of those kids at Parkland and Uvalde were in more than one piece. Not to mention the suicide mission of expecting some deputy sheriff to confront an AR with a pistol.

Can we get back to talking about Presidential immunity and whether our conservative judges will stick to their originalist principles or will they signal that they only self-identify as originalists?

I'm curious where any of this concern over originalist principles over Presidential immunity comes from? I didn't hear a lot of backtracking or cognitive dissonance in last week's SCOTUS hearing. It's pretty clear that Trump's laughable/troubling idea of complete immunity has no chance of standing, and the idea that you can prosecute the President for anything he/she does in office is also off the table. As with most things, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. What's the controversy?

[UNI88]

Can we get back to talking about Presidential immunity and whether our conservative judges will stick to their originalist principles or will they signal that they only self-identify as originalists?

I'm curious where any of this concern over originalist principles over Presidential immunity comes from? I didn't hear a lot of backtracking or cognitive dissonance in last week's SCOTUS hearing. It's pretty clear that Trump's laughable/troubling idea of complete immunity has no chance of standing, and the idea that you can prosecute the President for anything he/she does in office is also off the table. As with most things, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. What's the controversy?

Is there support for presidential immunity in the text of the Constitution?

[GannonFan]

I'm curious where any of this concern over originalist principles over Presidential immunity comes from? I didn't hear a lot of backtracking or cognitive dissonance in last week's SCOTUS hearing. It's pretty clear that Trump's laughable/troubling idea of complete immunity has no chance of standing, and the idea that you can prosecute the President for anything he/she does in office is also off the table. As with most things, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. What's the controversy?

Is there support for presidential immunity in the text of the Constitution?

The text of the Constitution broadly lists out what the President does. Those things would presumably be protected then. If he does other thing outside of that, then they wouldn't be protected. It also brings up the question then of suing the President specifically or suing the government as a whole.

[Caribbean Hen]

The only thing that Biden doesn’t criticize Trump for is presidential immunity….. hmmm I wonder why

[kalm]

I'm curious where any of this concern over originalist principles over Presidential immunity comes from? I didn't hear a lot of backtracking or cognitive dissonance in last week's SCOTUS hearing. It's pretty clear that Trump's laughable/troubling idea of complete immunity has no chance of standing, and the idea that you can prosecute the President for anything he/she does in office is also off the table. As with most things, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. What's the controversy?

Is there support for presidential immunity in the text of the Constitution?

No

[houndawg]

you're cute when you're mad

You have nothing except to display stuck on stupid.

I'll bow to your expertise on stupid, given the amount of dues you've paid here.

[houndawg]

I disagree, having watched an M-16 blow right through a telephone pole at close range. They would do that in basic because at the time there was still a lot of people spreading the word that the rifle jammed easily and was unreliable in combat. According to the Drills the problem was not the M-16 it was the surplus powder for the M-14 they used in an attempt to save money, which was why they did the demonstration. You may recall from your Physics class that kinetic energy increases by the square of the velocity (mv^2/2). You can find photos of the ballistic medium used to simulate human flesh that show the kind damage done. The odds are good that some of those kids at Parkland and Uvalde were in more than one piece. Not to mention the suicide mission of expecting some deputy sheriff to confront an AR with a pistol.

Can we get back to talking about Presidential immunity and whether our conservative judges will stick to their originalist principles or will they signal that they only self-identify as originalists?

Completely depends on who they think the next President will be. /thread

[UNI88]

Is there support for presidential immunity in the text of the Constitution?

The text of the Constitution broadly lists out what the President does. Those things would presumably be protected then. If he does other thing outside of that, then they wouldn't be protected. It also brings up the question then of suing the President specifically or suing the government as a whole.

Two points:

1) While I agree that the President should have some protection for official acts/duties couldn't it also be argued that ...

2) Immunity is not supported by the text of the Constitution and if the Justices applied the same logic used in Dobbs then the President is not immune.

[GannonFan]

The text of the Constitution broadly lists out what the President does. Those things would presumably be protected then. If he does other thing outside of that, then they wouldn't be protected. It also brings up the question then of suing the President specifically or suing the government as a whole.

Two points:

1) While I agree that the President should have some protection for official acts/duties couldn't it also be argued that ...

2) Immunity is not supported by the text of the Constitution and if the Justices applied the same logic used in Dobbs then the President is not immune.

It's not an all or nothing thing. Clearly Trump's view of absolute immunity is silly and it's not being realistically debated by anyone other than Trump. So the question does come down to what's covered and what isn't covered. The Constitution, in broad terms, lays out what the President's duties are. It's vague enough that sure, there will be debate over what those words mean. And after that, it would be whether the person (President) would be personally accountable or if the office, i.e. the government, would be accountable for things done while in office. As for Dobbs, I don't see the comparison. In that decision, the Court said it could be left up to the states to decide. But that was a case of individual rights and what was or wasn't protected by the Constitution. You could argue the merits or the decision there, but it wasn't the same question as this case, which is where does the Constitutionally proscribed acts of the Executive, while in office, stop and where do individual actions begin. But either way, it's not a decision to be left to the states - this is a federal office with federal actions, not at all what Dobbs was associated with.

[houndawg]

Two points:

1) While I agree that the President should have some protection for official acts/duties couldn't it also be argued that ...

2) Immunity is not supported by the text of the Constitution and if the Justices applied the same logic used in Dobbs then the President is not immune.

It's not an all or nothing thing. Clearly Trump's view of absolute immunity is silly and it's not being realistically debated by anyone other than Trump. So the question does come down to what's covered and what isn't covered. The Constitution, in broad terms, lays out what the President's duties are. It's vague enough that sure, there will be debate over what those words mean. And after that, it would be whether the person (President) would be personally accountable or if the office, i.e. the government, would be accountable for things done while in office. As for Dobbs, I don't see the comparison. In that decision, the Court said it could be left up to the states to decide. But that was a case of individual rights and what was or wasn't protected by the Constitution. You could argue the merits or the decision there, but it wasn't the same question as this case, which is where does the Constitutionally proscribed acts of the Executive, while in office, stop and where do individual actions begin. But either way, it's not a decision to be left to the states - this is a federal office with federal actions, not at all what Dobbs was associated with.

I don't think thats a good way for them to approach it - making a list of what is proscribed insinuates that anything else goes. I think it would be easier to do it the other way around and list the Constitutional duties of the Executive

[GannonFan]

It's not an all or nothing thing. Clearly Trump's view of absolute immunity is silly and it's not being realistically debated by anyone other than Trump. So the question does come down to what's covered and what isn't covered. The Constitution, in broad terms, lays out what the President's duties are. It's vague enough that sure, there will be debate over what those words mean. And after that, it would be whether the person (President) would be personally accountable or if the office, i.e. the government, would be accountable for things done while in office. As for Dobbs, I don't see the comparison. In that decision, the Court said it could be left up to the states to decide. But that was a case of individual rights and what was or wasn't protected by the Constitution. You could argue the merits or the decision there, but it wasn't the same question as this case, which is where does the Constitutionally proscribed acts of the Executive, while in office, stop and where do individual actions begin. But either way, it's not a decision to be left to the states - this is a federal office with federal actions, not at all what Dobbs was associated with.

I don't think thats a good way for them to approach it - making a list of what is proscribed insinuates that anything else goes. I think it would be easier to do it the other way around and list the Constitutional duties of the Executive

Or, in this case, go over what Trump is accused of and going action by action as to whether it is covered by official duty or not. There isn't a blanket decision one way or the other that addresses this. That's why SCOTUS will probably remand it back to the district court to sort through the details. I know people wanted this quickly, but sometimes things don't move quickly. We're more than 2 years out from the Jan 6th commission findings and no one as of yet has brought that case directly to court - even this one dances around the edges.

[kalm]

I don't think thats a good way for them to approach it - making a list of what is proscribed insinuates that anything else goes. I think it would be easier to do it the other way around and list the Constitutional duties of the Executive

Or, in this case, go over what Trump is accused of and going action by action as to whether it is covered by official duty or not. There isn't a blanket decision one way or the other that addresses this. That's why SCOTUS will probably remand it back to the district court to sort through the details. I know people wanted this quickly, but sometimes things don't move quickly. We're more than 2 years out from the Jan 6th commission findings and no one as of yet has brought that case directly to court - even this one dances around the edges.

Why grant cert in the first place or why not hear it immediately in this particular case other than it’s a low priority of your helping with stalling.

[houndawg]

I don't think thats a good way for them to approach it - making a list of what is proscribed insinuates that anything else goes. I think it would be easier to do it the other way around and list the Constitutional duties of the Executive

Or, in this case, go over what Trump is accused of and going action by action as to whether it is covered by official duty or not. There isn't a blanket decision one way or the other that addresses this. That's why SCOTUS will probably remand it back to the district court to sort through the details. I know people wanted this quickly, but sometimes things don't move quickly. We're more than 2 years out from the Jan 6th commission findings and no one as of yet has brought that case directly to court - even this one dances around the edges.

...sure hasn't been for lack of effort.

So why aren't they doing that? They could have been doing exactly that since last year but instead they're blowing smoke about "decisions for the ages". Roberts seems to be keeping his powder dry for right now - probably thinking what a drag it is that his SCOTUS will be remembered as the junior varsity of SCOTUSes.

[BDKJMU]

Or, in this case, go over what Trump is accused of and going action by action as to whether it is covered by official duty or not. There isn't a blanket decision one way or the other that addresses this. That's why SCOTUS will probably remand it back to the district court to sort through the details. I know people wanted this quickly, but sometimes things don't move quickly. We're more than 2 years out from the Jan 6th commission findings and no one as of yet has brought that case directly to court - even this one dances around the edges.

Why grant cert in the first place or why not hear it immediately in this particular case other than it’s a low priority of your helping with stalling.

Complicated fed criminal cases typicaly take a couple years from indictment/discovery/appeals/trial. Ones that go all the way before SCOTUS even longer.

[kalm]

Why grant cert in the first place or why not hear it immediately in this particular case other than it’s a low priority of your helping with stalling.

Complicated fed criminal cases typicaly take a couple years from indictment/discovery/appeals/trial. Ones that go all the way before SCOTUS even longer.

It doesn’t have to. Gore v. Bush was fast tracked as were some of the 2020 election cases.

This one obviously deserves that consideration.

[houndawg]

Complicated fed criminal cases typicaly take a couple years from indictment/discovery/appeals/trial. Ones that go all the way before SCOTUS even longer.

It doesn’t have to. Gore v. Bush was fast tracked as were some of the 2020 election cases.

This one obviously deserves that consideration.

John Roberts and the Junior Varsity are in the tank

[GannonFan]

Or, in this case, go over what Trump is accused of and going action by action as to whether it is covered by official duty or not. There isn't a blanket decision one way or the other that addresses this. That's why SCOTUS will probably remand it back to the district court to sort through the details. I know people wanted this quickly, but sometimes things don't move quickly. We're more than 2 years out from the Jan 6th commission findings and no one as of yet has brought that case directly to court - even this one dances around the edges.

Why grant cert in the first place or why not hear it immediately in this particular case other than it’s a low priority of your helping with stalling.

It didn't even need to be at SCOTUS right now, that was Smith trying to fast track it rather than follow the normal route. Once he petitioned them to take it up I can't see them not taking it. With that said, this is bigger than Trump, so it's going to need a little thought in this. It's not something you want to rush and again you need to think about how this applies and works when it doesn't involve someone named Trump.

As for stalling, come on, Jan 6th was more than 3 years ago now and the committee for that day released their report almost a year and a half ago after a whole year of slow walking their work. This thing has been slow walked for all that time - you can make a good argument that was plan as Dems wanted this to hit during the election year - they wanted Trump to be the candidate and they wanted court cases this year. If we were really interested in justice a lot of these cases would've happened a lot sooner. It was a risky gambit to slow walk the cases that long and it may or may not pay off for the Dems in this election.

[kalm]

Why grant cert in the first place or why not hear it immediately in this particular case other than it’s a low priority of your helping with stalling.

It didn't even need to be at SCOTUS right now, that was Smith trying to fast track it rather than follow the normal route. Once he petitioned them to take it up I can't see them not taking it. With that said, this is bigger than Trump, so it's going to need a little thought in this. It's not something you want to rush and again you need to think about how this applies and works when it doesn't involve someone named Trump.

As for stalling, come on, Jan 6th was more than 3 years ago now and the committee for that day released their report almost a year and a half ago after a whole year of slow walking their work. This thing has been slow walked for all that time - you can make a good argument that was plan as Dems wanted this to hit during the election year - they wanted Trump to be the candidate and they wanted court cases this year. If we were really interested in justice a lot of these cases would've happened a lot sooner. It was a risky gambit to slow walk the cases that long and it may or may not pay off for the Dems in this election.

If it doesn’t need to be at SCOTUS right now than why grant cert.?

Agree on the timing and that’s on Gorsuch. But if you also argue it requires thought to not hasten it, the same could be said for prosecuting a former president and the all the various and complicated laws he alleged to have broken.

Do you think it’s beyond imaginable that the conservative judges are in the tank?

[GannonFan]

It didn't even need to be at SCOTUS right now, that was Smith trying to fast track it rather than follow the normal route. Once he petitioned them to take it up I can't see them not taking it. With that said, this is bigger than Trump, so it's going to need a little thought in this. It's not something you want to rush and again you need to think about how this applies and works when it doesn't involve someone named Trump.

As for stalling, come on, Jan 6th was more than 3 years ago now and the committee for that day released their report almost a year and a half ago after a whole year of slow walking their work. This thing has been slow walked for all that time - you can make a good argument that was plan as Dems wanted this to hit during the election year - they wanted Trump to be the candidate and they wanted court cases this year. If we were really interested in justice a lot of these cases would've happened a lot sooner. It was a risky gambit to slow walk the cases that long and it may or may not pay off for the Dems in this election.

If it doesn’t need to be at SCOTUS right now than why grant cert.?

Agree on the timing and that’s on Gorsuch. But if you also argue it requires thought to not hasten it, the same could be said for prosecuting a former president and the all the various and complicated laws he alleged to have broken.

Do you think it’s beyond imaginable that the conservative judges are in the tank?

They granted cert because Smith made it a big deal to petition the Court and to refuse such a big case and a public ask like that would've generated probably even more howling from the left. Basically, it was too big of a deal to ignore.

Taking a couple of months (they'll probably decide in June) is different than waiting 3 years to prosecute Trump for anything related to Jan 6th. Like I said, the Jan 6th committee probably took 6 months too long to come to their conclusions, but at the end of it they had it nicely put together in terms of how he could be prosecuted for it. We're on a year and a half later and even Smith's case doesn't go to the heart of what the Jan 6th committee recommended. And again, don't underestimate the political thinking behind the prosecutions. Things were slow walked for the past 3 years so that they could come to a head now. The main focus wasn't justice, the main focus was political impact.

And no, I do not believe the conservative justices are in the tank on anything. Nor do I think the liberal justices are in the tank for anything either. I have a much higher opinion of the Court and its justices than do you or houndie do.

[UNI88]

If it doesn’t need to be at SCOTUS right now than why grant cert.?

Agree on the timing and that’s on Gorsuch. But if you also argue it requires thought to not hasten it, the same could be said for prosecuting a former president and the all the various and complicated laws he alleged to have broken.

Do you think it’s beyond imaginable that the conservative judges are in the tank?

They granted cert because Smith made it a big deal to petition the Court and to refuse such a big case and a public ask like that would've generated probably even more howling from the left. Basically, it was too big of a deal to ignore.

Taking a couple of months (they'll probably decide in June) is different than waiting 3 years to prosecute Trump for anything related to Jan 6th. Like I said, the Jan 6th committee probably took 6 months too long to come to their conclusions, but at the end of it they had it nicely put together in terms of how he could be prosecuted for it. We're on a year and a half later and even Smith's case doesn't go to the heart of what the Jan 6th committee recommended. And again, don't underestimate the political thinking behind the prosecutions. Things were slow walked for the past 3 years so that they could come to a head now. The main focus wasn't justice, the main focus was political impact.

And no, I do not believe the conservative justices are in the tank on anything. Nor do I think the liberal justices are in the tank for anything either. I have a much higher opinion of the Court and its justices than do you or houndie do.

While I don't have a high of an opinion of Thomas & Alito (or Kagan & Sotomayor), I don't think they're in the tank. They're more partisan than they should be. Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving trump and January 6.

Roberts and the justices appointed by trump have demonstrated the ability to think and not be driven by their ideology when reviewing cases.

[GannonFan]

They granted cert because Smith made it a big deal to petition the Court and to refuse such a big case and a public ask like that would've generated probably even more howling from the left. Basically, it was too big of a deal to ignore.

Taking a couple of months (they'll probably decide in June) is different than waiting 3 years to prosecute Trump for anything related to Jan 6th. Like I said, the Jan 6th committee probably took 6 months too long to come to their conclusions, but at the end of it they had it nicely put together in terms of how he could be prosecuted for it. We're on a year and a half later and even Smith's case doesn't go to the heart of what the Jan 6th committee recommended. And again, don't underestimate the political thinking behind the prosecutions. Things were slow walked for the past 3 years so that they could come to a head now. The main focus wasn't justice, the main focus was political impact.

And no, I do not believe the conservative justices are in the tank on anything. Nor do I think the liberal justices are in the tank for anything either. I have a much higher opinion of the Court and its justices than do you or houndie do.

While I don't have a high of an opinion of Thomas & Alito (or Kagan & Sotomayor), I don't think they're in the tank. They're more partisan than they should be. Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving trump and January 6.

Roberts and the justices appointed by trump have demonstrated the ability to think and not be driven by their ideology when reviewing cases.

Kagan doesn't belong in that group. Thomas is angry and bitter for 4 decades of being called an Uncle Tom and for being held to account for the same crap that all those folks on the Judiciary Committee at the time (including Biden then) were likely also doing. Alito is probably just a disagreeable person and Sotomayor is probably the most political minded of all 9 justices (jury's out on Brown Jackson). Kagan isn't like any of them at all and is more like Roberts and Gorsuch and heck, even Kavanaugh, who'd been a pleasant surprise on the Court.

[UNI88]

Historian says Trump lawyer "deliberatively misleading" SCOTUS: Ben Franklin "would be horrified"

Sauer has centered Franklin in his argument for presidential immunity, writing in a recent filing that: “The Framers viewed the prosecution of the Chief Executive as a radical innovation to be treated with great caution. Benjamin Franklin stated at the Constitutional Convention: 'History furnishes one example of a first Magistrate being formally brought to public Justice. Every body cried out ag[ain]st this as unconstitutional.'"

The full quote unedited by trump's deceiptful, FAKE NEWS spreading attorneys:
"History furnishes one example only of a first magistrate being formally brought to public justice. Every body cried out against this as unconstitutional. What was the practice before this, in cases where the chief magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why, recourse was had to assassination, in which he was not only deprived of his life, but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It would be the best way, therefore, to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the executive, where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal, where he should be unjustly accused."

Do trump's attorneys believe he should be assassinated?

[kalm]

If it doesn’t need to be at SCOTUS right now than why grant cert.?

Agree on the timing and that’s on Gorsuch. But if you also argue it requires thought to not hasten it, the same could be said for prosecuting a former president and the all the various and complicated laws he alleged to have broken.

Do you think it’s beyond imaginable that the conservative judges are in the tank?

They granted cert because Smith made it a big deal to petition the Court and to refuse such a big case and a public ask like that would've generated probably even more howling from the left. Basically, it was too big of a deal to ignore.

Taking a couple of months (they'll probably decide in June) is different than waiting 3 years to prosecute Trump for anything related to Jan 6th. Like I said, the Jan 6th committee probably took 6 months too long to come to their conclusions, but at the end of it they had it nicely put together in terms of how he could be prosecuted for it. We're on a year and a half later and even Smith's case doesn't go to the heart of what the Jan 6th committee recommended. And again, don't underestimate the political thinking behind the prosecutions. Things were slow walked for the past 3 years so that they could come to a head now. The main focus wasn't justice, the main focus was political impact.

And no, I do not believe the conservative justices are in the tank on anything. Nor do I think the liberal justices are in the tank for anything either. I have a much higher opinion of the Court and its justices than do you or houndie do.

It took them 2 weeks to decide on Colorado. If it’s an important enough issue to them, they could have sped this up.

I agree this should have been prosecuted much quicker but the there are obvious explanations for some of the delay starting with…you want to get it right from the start. That takes time. SCOTUS dragging their feet now renders that argument a bit of a red herring.

They may not be in the tank but the right winger’s questioning and decisions on other cases not to mention Ginny Thomas raises legit suspicions.

Judges, like presidents are not infallible.