2024 SCOTUS Rulings Thread

[houndawg]

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

because be careful what you ask for

[houndawg]

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.

The Colorado case was simple and straightforward. I told you months before that ruling that it was going to be 9-0 but you wanted to believe the folks who were so anti-Trump that they could contort any law in any way to block him. In addition, they had to proceed quickly on that one because after Colorado, there was starting to be an avalanche of different states coming up with their own unique, unconstitutional ways, to strike him from the ballot. Easy decision and the timing was necessary as elections were proceeding.

My complaint about the foot dragging to this point is that it's clearly been political. They wanted Trump to be the nominee, so they couldn't bring these cases against him too early and jeopardize that. This is a unique and unprecedented case with significant impacts on future litigations of Presidents not named Trump, and the Constitution is kind of vague on it. That's not one that would have a snap judgement on, and I don't think it should either.

And rather than just blanket smears, what other cases and what was said that would give a reasonable person concerns that certain judges were corrupt and being bought off for their votes on certain decisions? I have no problem with the idea that judges aren't infallible, but there's a canyon of difference between being infallible and being corrupt. You're going to need to fill that in considerably before you can make that leap.

I don't think its about buying them off on a per case basis, I think its about installing the ones who share your ideology and making sure they stick to it - such as Clarence the Tame. Harlan Crow has him by the ball, and would have them both if Clarence had two of them, because he undoubtedly has the receipts for the largesse he's cascaded upon the Thomases. Clarence couldn't recuse himself without Massa's permission if he wanted to.

[GannonFan]

The Colorado case was simple and straightforward. I told you months before that ruling that it was going to be 9-0 but you wanted to believe the folks who were so anti-Trump that they could contort any law in any way to block him. In addition, they had to proceed quickly on that one because after Colorado, there was starting to be an avalanche of different states coming up with their own unique, unconstitutional ways, to strike him from the ballot. Easy decision and the timing was necessary as elections were proceeding.

My complaint about the foot dragging to this point is that it's clearly been political. They wanted Trump to be the nominee, so they couldn't bring these cases against him too early and jeopardize that. This is a unique and unprecedented case with significant impacts on future litigations of Presidents not named Trump, and the Constitution is kind of vague on it. That's not one that would have a snap judgement on, and I don't think it should either.

And rather than just blanket smears, what other cases and what was said that would give a reasonable person concerns that certain judges were corrupt and being bought off for their votes on certain decisions? I have no problem with the idea that judges aren't infallible, but there's a canyon of difference between being infallible and being corrupt. You're going to need to fill that in considerably before you can make that leap.

I don't think its about buying them off on a per case basis, I think its about installing the ones who share your ideology and making sure they stick to it - such as Clarence the Tame. Harlan Crow has him by the ball, and would have them both if Clarence had two of them, because he undoubtedly has the receipts for the largesse he's cascaded upon the Thomases. Clarence couldn't recuse himself without Massa's permission if he wanted to.

Hey, I don't disagree at all that justices are selected at the start based on their perceived ideology/jurisprudence leaning - of course they are. Hence why you get different justices depending on the President picking them. But once they're there, barring an impeachment and removal (only ever been one impeachment and they didn't have the votes in the Senate for removal), they're there until they do or retire. Plenty of justices have shifted overtime - Kennedy was an example I had before, Souter was another, O'Connor was another. Thomas isn't one of them - he's been this way since he got on the bench and he hasn't shifted at all since then. Recusals vary from judge to judge, and we never know why they recuse. Certainly justices more recently elevated to the bench recuse more, but that's because we could be touching cases they worked on in the years before joining the Court. Regardless, Thomas doesn't come across as a justice who has his ideology and his basis for coming to decisions based on how many vacations someone pays for him - he's really just that type of judge, as evidenced by his entire career, even before people paid for his vacations. And like I said, how he was treated through his confirmation and really ever since has probably cemented his positions.

[houndawg]

I don't think its about buying them off on a per case basis, I think its about installing the ones who share your ideology and making sure they stick to it - such as Clarence the Tame. Harlan Crow has him by the ball, and would have them both if Clarence had two of them, because he undoubtedly has the receipts for the largesse he's cascaded upon the Thomases. Clarence couldn't recuse himself without Massa's permission if he wanted to.

Hey, I don't disagree at all that justices are selected at the start based on their perceived ideology/jurisprudence leaning - of course they are. Hence why you get different justices depending on the President picking them. But once they're there, barring an impeachment and removal (only ever been one impeachment and they didn't have the votes in the Senate for removal), they're there until they do or retire. Plenty of justices have shifted overtime - Kennedy was an example I had before, Souter was another, O'Connor was another. Thomas isn't one of them - he's been this way since he got on the bench and he hasn't shifted at all since then. Recusals vary from judge to judge, and we never know why they recuse. Certainly justices more recently elevated to the bench recuse more, but that's because we could be touching cases they worked on in the years before joining the Court. Regardless, Thomas doesn't come across as a justice who has his ideology and his basis for coming to decisions based on how many vacations someone pays for him - he's really just that type of judge, as evidenced by his entire career, even before people paid for his vacations. And like I said, how he was treated through his confirmation and really ever since has probably cemented his positions.

I think the way he treated Anita Hill speaks volumes about his positions long before the confirmation process.

And as I recall from watching the hearings Joe Biden should still be ashamed of his performance in that event - and I hope he gets asked about it during the campaign and let the chips fall where they may.

[houndawg]

I don't think its about buying them off on a per case basis, I think its about installing the ones who share your ideology and making sure they stick to it - such as Clarence the Tame. Harlan Crow has him by the ball, and would have them both if Clarence had two of them, because he undoubtedly has the receipts for the largesse he's cascaded upon the Thomases. Clarence couldn't recuse himself without Massa's permission if he wanted to.

Hey, I don't disagree at all that justices are selected at the start based on their perceived ideology/jurisprudence leaning - of course they are. Hence why you get different justices depending on the President picking them. But once they're there, barring an impeachment and removal (only ever been one impeachment and they didn't have the votes in the Senate for removal), they're there until they do or retire. Plenty of justices have shifted overtime - Kennedy was an example I had before, Souter was another, O'Connor was another. Thomas isn't one of them - he's been this way since he got on the bench and he hasn't shifted at all since then. Recusals vary from judge to judge, and we never know why they recuse. Certainly justices more recently elevated to the bench recuse more, but that's because we could be touching cases they worked on in the years before joining the Court. Regardless, Thomas doesn't come across as a justice who has his ideology and his basis for coming to decisions based on how many vacations someone pays for him - he's really just that type of judge, as evidenced by his entire career, even before people paid for his vacations. And like I said, how he was treated through his confirmation and really ever since has probably cemented his positions.

Do you think Trump going to fire his lawyers on this case?

[GannonFan]

Hey, I don't disagree at all that justices are selected at the start based on their perceived ideology/jurisprudence leaning - of course they are. Hence why you get different justices depending on the President picking them. But once they're there, barring an impeachment and removal (only ever been one impeachment and they didn't have the votes in the Senate for removal), they're there until they do or retire. Plenty of justices have shifted overtime - Kennedy was an example I had before, Souter was another, O'Connor was another. Thomas isn't one of them - he's been this way since he got on the bench and he hasn't shifted at all since then. Recusals vary from judge to judge, and we never know why they recuse. Certainly justices more recently elevated to the bench recuse more, but that's because we could be touching cases they worked on in the years before joining the Court. Regardless, Thomas doesn't come across as a justice who has his ideology and his basis for coming to decisions based on how many vacations someone pays for him - he's really just that type of judge, as evidenced by his entire career, even before people paid for his vacations. And like I said, how he was treated through his confirmation and really ever since has probably cemented his positions.

I think the way he treated Anita Hill speaks volumes about his positions long before the confirmation process.

And as I recall from watching the hearings Joe Biden should still be ashamed of his performance in that event - and I hope he gets asked about it during the campaign and let the chips fall where they may.

As Cokie Roberts and Nina Totenberg said many years later, Joe and the rest of that Judiciary Committee were never going to bring the Anita Hill stuff to light because what Clarence Thomas had been doing really hadn't been all that different, and maybe even less egregious, than what the committee members themselves had been doing their whole careers. Not excusing Thomas at all, because his actions were reprehensible, but he wasn't really any different than the white guys sitting on that committee. It wasn't until they got pushed to air it that they actually did. I doubt Biden will be asked much about it at all - the questions didn't dwell on him in the last election when Kamala brought up his resistance to busing as a remedy for racial segregation for schools back in the late 70's/early 80's (Biden avoided this by sending his kids to a mostly white private school) so I don't see why this would be brought up. Especially by Trump, who's most likely even worse in this regard.

[BDKJMU]

Like we already talked about before, this isn't a yes/no, magic 8-ball decision. They're writing stuff that will impact the Presidency for the next 100 years or more. Once it got to this level, it was more than about just Trump. If Smith wanted something quick, he shouldn't have appealed in this way to the SCOTUS. Even then, they're moving faster than they normally would - we'll have a ruling by June. Election isn't until November. And in the meantime there are plenty of other cases moving forward that don't even relate to this. Plenty of this stuff also could've been brought to court far sooner than it did. When you slow walk cases so that you can try them in the election year for maximum effect, as clearly was done here, you also have to realize you're threading a tight needle of trying to get it in and decided in that small window of time. Dems took a gamble on this and we'll see what happens come November.

I thought the slow walking was about trying to delay trying the cases in the election year.

That’s your problem. And wrong.

Indictment wasn’t filed until Aug 2023, over 2 1/2 years after J6. Clearly could have been filed way sooner, but nope, the donks waited so they could time it to have it go to trial Spring/Summer of 2024, but looks like they fucked up the timing.

1st 75 years of Trump’s his life = 0 criminal indictments.
76th year 4 filed, in 4 different jurisdictions (1st time in US history that has happened to anyone). And all 4 cases just happened to be timed to take place in an election year. Gee, what a coincidence! So go ahead and keep believing its just a coincidence that has nothing to do with the election..

[houndawg]

I thought the slow walking was about trying to delay trying the cases in the election year.

That’s your problem. And wrong.

Indictment wasn’t filed until Aug 2023, over 2 1/2 years after J6. Clearly could have been filed way sooner, but nope, the donks waited so they could time it to have it go to trial Spring/Summer of 2024, but looks like they fucked up the timing.

1st 75 years of Trump’s his life = 0 criminal indictments.
76th year 4 filed, in 4 different jurisdictions (1st time in US history that has happened to anyone). And all 4 cases just happened to be timed to take place in an election year. Gee, what a coincidence! So go ahead and keep believing its just a coincidence that has nothing to do with the election..

The wheels of justice grind slowly..

[kalm]

Like we already talked about before, this isn't a yes/no, magic 8-ball decision. They're writing stuff that will impact the Presidency for the next 100 years or more. Once it got to this level, it was more than about just Trump. If Smith wanted something quick, he shouldn't have appealed in this way to the SCOTUS. Even then, they're moving faster than they normally would - we'll have a ruling by June. Election isn't until November. And in the meantime there are plenty of other cases moving forward that don't even relate to this. Plenty of this stuff also could've been brought to court far sooner than it did. When you slow walk cases so that you can try them in the election year for maximum effect, as clearly was done here, you also have to realize you're threading a tight needle of trying to get it in and decided in that small window of time. Dems took a gamble on this and we'll see what happens come November.

The flip side of the "we deserve to know the outcome of these dozens of felony indictments before the election" is that trump deserves fair trials just as much as any person. Houndy, kalm and I might not like him and might not want him to be President again but justice should be blind regardless of who the defendant is. You want to do some of the very things that trump is threatening to do if he wins and begins a campaign of retribution. I would warn anyone who wants to "streamline" things because it's trump to be careful not to become that which you hate.

As far as thomas and alito are concerned, there is a difference between corrupt and unethical. I agree with Ganny that all of the "gifts" thomas and alito have received have likely not changed their votes/opinions. I also believe that because of his wife's involvement, thomas should recuse himself from any cases involving January 6 in order to avoid a potential conflict of interest. I do think that what they have done is unethical and that SCOTUS needs to really tighten up its reporting and ethics requirements.

thomas' connection to ginni and her words and actions around January 6 and the "stolen" election are exponentially more of a conflict of interest than any liberal judge and their relatives in any of trump's other cases.

Campaign financing, court appointments, or “gifts”…it’s naive to argue there’s no influence on decisions and interpretation of the constitution.

It’s unethical indeed. Whether it’s legal or not, it defies the intentions of justice.

[houndawg]

The flip side of the "we deserve to know the outcome of these dozens of felony indictments before the election" is that trump deserves fair trials just as much as any person. Houndy, kalm and I might not like him and might not want him to be President again but justice should be blind regardless of who the defendant is. You want to do some of the very things that trump is threatening to do if he wins and begins a campaign of retribution. I would warn anyone who wants to "streamline" things because it's trump to be careful not to become that which you hate.

As far as thomas and alito are concerned, there is a difference between corrupt and unethical. I agree with Ganny that all of the "gifts" thomas and alito have received have likely not changed their votes/opinions. I also believe that because of his wife's involvement, thomas should recuse himself from any cases involving January 6 in order to avoid a potential conflict of interest. I do think that what they have done is unethical and that SCOTUS needs to really tighten up its reporting and ethics requirements.

thomas' connection to ginni and her words and actions around January 6 and the "stolen" election are exponentially more of a conflict of interest than any liberal judge and their relatives in any of trump's other cases.

Campaign financing, court appointments, or “gifts”…it’s naive to argue there’s no influence on decisions and interpretation of the constitution.

It’s unethical indeed. Whether it’s legal or not, it defies the contentions of justice.

John Roberts and the Junior Varsity

[BDKJMU]

That’s your problem. And wrong.

Indictment wasn’t filed until Aug 2023, over 2 1/2 years after J6. Clearly could have been filed way sooner, but nope, the donks waited so they could time it to have it go to trial Spring/Summer of 2024, but looks like they fucked up the timing.

1st 75 years of Trump’s his life = 0 criminal indictments.
76th year 4 filed, in 4 different jurisdictions (1st time in US history that has happened to anyone). And all 4 cases just happened to be timed to take place in an election year. Gee, what a coincidence! So go ahead and keep believing its just a coincidence that has nothing to do with the election..

The wheels of justice grind slowly..

Too bad then.

[UNI88]

I thought the slow walking was about trying to delay trying the cases in the election year.

That’s your problem. And wrong.

Indictment wasn’t filed until Aug 2023, over 2 1/2 years after J6. Clearly could have been filed way sooner, but nope, the donks waited so they could time it to have it go to trial Spring/Summer of 2024, but looks like they fucked up the timing.

1st 75 years of Trump’s his life = 0 criminal indictments.
76th year 4 filed, in 4 different jurisdictions (1st time in US history that has happened to anyone). And all 4 cases just happened to be timed to take place in an election year. Gee, what a coincidence! So go ahead and keep believing its just a coincidence that has nothing to do with the election..

It took him 75 years to get himself into legal trouble that he couldn't buy his way out of.

[houndawg]

That’s your problem. And wrong.

Indictment wasn’t filed until Aug 2023, over 2 1/2 years after J6. Clearly could have been filed way sooner, but nope, the donks waited so they could time it to have it go to trial Spring/Summer of 2024, but looks like they fucked up the timing.

1st 75 years of Trump’s his life = 0 criminal indictments.
76th year 4 filed, in 4 different jurisdictions (1st time in US history that has happened to anyone). And all 4 cases just happened to be timed to take place in an election year. Gee, what a coincidence! So go ahead and keep believing its just a coincidence that has nothing to do with the election..

It took him 75 years to get himself into legal trouble that he couldn't buy his way out of.

Back to you BDMBFK.......

[BDKJMU]

It took him 75 years to get himself into legal trouble that he couldn't buy his way out of.

Back to you BDMBFK.......

Majority of people are smart enough to see that this is politically timed lawfare. Clearly you 2 aren’t one of them.

[UNI88]

Back to you BDMBFK.......

Majority of people are smart enough to see that this is politically timed lawfare. Clearly you 2 aren’t one of them.

1 or 2 cases might be lawfare. The documents case and the cases around his attempts to STEAL THE 2020 ELECTION are absolutely worth pursuing.

Maybe if his daddy hadn't bailed him out early in life he would have learned personal responsibility and not grown up believing that he could buy his way out of every dumb and/or illegal thing he did.

[GannonFan]

Majority of people are smart enough to see that this is politically timed lawfare. Clearly you 2 aren’t one of them.

1 or 2 cases might be lawfare. The documents case and the cases around his attempts to STEAL THE 2020 ELECTION are absolutely worth pursuing.

Maybe if his daddy hadn't bailed him out early in life he would have learned personal responsibility and not grown up believing that he could buy his way out of every dumb and/or illegal thing he did.

The case in NY for overvaluing his assets - textbook example of lawfare.
The current case in NY for hush money - more of a gray area, probably an easier path to a misdemeanor, likely tough path to a felony conviction given the contortions to even classify it as a felony - arguable lawfare.
The documents case and Trump's efforts to resist collection of these - not lawfare at all, Trump's own stupidity and stubbornness is to blame for this. Agree to give back the documents when they asked for them and this wouldn't have even been a thing. Not lawfare at all.
Jack Smith's case against some of Trump's Jan 6th actions - not lawfare. Trump should've been removed from office following impeachment for this. He's got no leg to stand on for his brazen abdication of responsibility over this. If we handled this properly at the time we wouldn't have him running again now.

More clear is the timing of many of these cases for maximum effect in an election year. There's little doubt that political calculus went into this. It may backfire, as Trump is top news basically every day now, but we'll find out in November. We have two extremely unpopular candidates with gaping holes in their qualifications for office - it's a crapshoot.

[UNI88]

1 or 2 cases might be lawfare. The documents case and the cases around his attempts to STEAL THE 2020 ELECTION are absolutely worth pursuing.

Maybe if his daddy hadn't bailed him out early in life he would have learned personal responsibility and not grown up believing that he could buy his way out of every dumb and/or illegal thing he did.

The case in NY for overvaluing his assets - textbook example of lawfare.
The current case in NY for hush money - more of a gray area, probably an easier path to a misdemeanor, likely tough path to a felony conviction given the contortions to even classify it as a felony - arguable lawfare.
The documents case and Trump's efforts to resist collection of these - not lawfare at all, Trump's own stupidity and stubbornness is to blame for this. Agree to give back the documents when they asked for them and this wouldn't have even been a thing. Not lawfare at all.
Jack Smith's case against some of Trump's Jan 6th actions - not lawfare. Trump should've been removed from office following impeachment for this. He's got no leg to stand on for his brazen abdication of responsibility over this. If we handled this properly at the time we wouldn't have him running again now.

More clear is the timing of many of these cases for maximum effect in an election year. There's little doubt that political calculus went into this. It may backfire, as Trump is top news basically every day now, but we'll find out in November. We have two extremely unpopular candidates with gaping holes in their qualifications for office - it's a crapshoot.

Majority or not, this is how smart, reasonable and unbiased people look at the cases against trump.

I hope that the timing of the federal cases is because it took the DoJ time to put the cases together not because of political calculus. Justice should be blind and the DoJ should be above that.

I do worry about trump's plans for the DoJ and other federal agencies if he wins. I wonder how the MAQA yahoos who complained about lawfare will explain their expected hypocritical flip flop when he attempts to use the DoJ to go after his enemies.

[BDKJMU]

1 or 2 cases might be lawfare. The documents case and the cases around his attempts to STEAL THE 2020 ELECTION are absolutely worth pursuing.

Maybe if his daddy hadn't bailed him out early in life he would have learned personal responsibility and not grown up believing that he could buy his way out of every dumb and/or illegal thing he did.

The case in NY for overvaluing his assets - textbook example of lawfare.
The current case in NY for hush money - more of a gray area, probably an easier path to a misdemeanor, likely tough path to a felony conviction given the contortions to even classify it as a felony - arguable lawfare.
The documents case and Trump's efforts to resist collection of these - not lawfare at all, Trump's own stupidity and stubbornness is to blame for this. Agree to give back the documents when they asked for them and this wouldn't have even been a thing. Not lawfare at all.
Jack Smith's case against some of Trump's Jan 6th actions - not lawfare. Trump should've been removed from office following impeachment for this. He's got no leg to stand on for his brazen abdication of responsibility over this. If we handled this properly at the time we wouldn't have him running again now.

More clear is the timing of many of these cases for maximum effect in an election year. There's little doubt that political calculus went into this. It may backfire, as Trump is top news basically every day now, but we'll find out in November. We have two extremely unpopular candidates with gaping holes in their qualifications for office - it's a crapshoot.

Don’t forget the other NY civil with the special get Trump law the NY State legislature passed to temporarily greatly extend the statute of limitations so the case against Trump could be brought.

You got that part right.

[BDKJMU]

The case in NY for overvaluing his assets - textbook example of lawfare.
The current case in NY for hush money - more of a gray area, probably an easier path to a misdemeanor, likely tough path to a felony conviction given the contortions to even classify it as a felony - arguable lawfare.
The documents case and Trump's efforts to resist collection of these - not lawfare at all, Trump's own stupidity and stubbornness is to blame for this. Agree to give back the documents when they asked for them and this wouldn't have even been a thing. Not lawfare at all.
Jack Smith's case against some of Trump's Jan 6th actions - not lawfare. Trump should've been removed from office following impeachment for this. He's got no leg to stand on for his brazen abdication of responsibility over this. If we handled this properly at the time we wouldn't have him running again now.

More clear is the timing of many of these cases for maximum effect in an election year. There's little doubt that political calculus went into this. It may backfire, as Trump is top news basically every day now, but we'll find out in November. We have two extremely unpopular candidates with gaping holes in their qualifications for office - it's a crapshoot.

Majority or not, this is how smart, reasonable and unbiased people look at the cases against trump.

I hope that the timing of the federal cases is because it took the DoJ time to put the cases together not because of political calculus. Justice should be blind and the DoJ should be above that.

I do worry about trump's plans for the DoJ and other federal agencies if he wins. I wonder how the MAQA yahoos who complained about lawfare will explain their expected hypocritical flip flop when he attempts to use the DoJ to go after his enemies.

Hope? Lol that’s cute.

[UNI88]

Majority or not, this is how smart, reasonable and unbiased people look at the cases against trump.

I hope that the timing of the federal cases is because it took the DoJ time to put the cases together not because of political calculus. Justice should be blind and the DoJ should be above that.

I do worry about trump's plans for the DoJ and other federal agencies if he wins. I wonder how the MAQA yahoos who complained about lawfare will explain their expected hypocritical flip flop when he attempts to use the DoJ to go after his enemies.

Hope? Lol that’s cute.

And you'll be cheering them on if trump wins and they're not above it because "they did it first", "they asked for it" or some other such nonsense to try and justify bad behavior.

[houndawg]

Majority of people are smart enough to see that this is politically timed lawfare. Clearly you 2 aren’t one of them.

1 or 2 cases might be lawfare. The documents case and the cases around his attempts to STEAL THE 2020 ELECTION are absolutely worth pursuing.

Maybe if his daddy hadn't bailed him out early in life he would have learned personal responsibility and not grown up believing that he could buy his way out of every dumb and/or illegal thing he did.

Maybe if he would have had to navigate the playground like normal kids he wouldn't be such a cunt.