2024 SCOTUS Rulings Thread

[BDKJMU]

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.

SCOTUS isn’t draging their feet. They are still going as fast if not faster with this case than they would most 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.

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.

[kalm]

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.

It’s as much of a leap to say the prosecutorial delays were political.

Presidential immunity as it pertains to Trump’s case is not complicated.

[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.

It’s as much of a leap to say the prosecutorial delays were political.

Presidential immunity as it pertains to Trump’s case is not complicated.

Well, if you think so. There's literally no evidence of corruption of any of the justices (questionable activity tied directly to unusual behavior/decision) - heck, given Thomas's wife's activities you would think there would be something that would tie him to those things and we seem not to have found it. I agree that it's not a good look, but there's also an amazing lack of a smoking gun as well.

If Trump's immunity wasn't complicated, then why did Jack Smith take the unheard of step of going right to the Supreme Court to resolve? And again, it's far more about Presidents who aren't Trump, and once you jump to the Supreme Court, it becomes far more about that question than it does just about Trump. If Smith wanted to keep it about Trump he should've stayed at the court level where he was.

[kalm]

It’s as much of a leap to say the prosecutorial delays were political.

Presidential immunity as it pertains to Trump’s case is not complicated.

Well, if you think so. There's literally no evidence of corruption of any of the justices (questionable activity tied directly to unusual behavior/decision) - heck, given Thomas's wife's activities you would think there would be something that would tie him to those things and we seem not to have found it. I agree that it's not a good look, but there's also an amazing lack of a smoking gun as well.

If Trump's immunity wasn't complicated, then why did Jack Smith take the unheard of step of going right to the Supreme Court to resolve? And again, it's far more about Presidents who aren't Trump, and once you jump to the Supreme Court, it becomes far more about that question than it does just about Trump. If Smith wanted to keep it about Trump he should've stayed at the court level where he was.

Seriously? Have you not hear of Leonard Leo or the travel gifts, the Thomas financials, etc? It’s baked into the system. Same as corporate personhood and campaign finance.

And you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a constitutional law professor or retired judge who disagrees with you on nearly all of this stuff.

It’s charming you think corruption doesn’t exist.

[GannonFan]

Well, if you think so. There's literally no evidence of corruption of any of the justices (questionable activity tied directly to unusual behavior/decision) - heck, given Thomas's wife's activities you would think there would be something that would tie him to those things and we seem not to have found it. I agree that it's not a good look, but there's also an amazing lack of a smoking gun as well.

If Trump's immunity wasn't complicated, then why did Jack Smith take the unheard of step of going right to the Supreme Court to resolve? And again, it's far more about Presidents who aren't Trump, and once you jump to the Supreme Court, it becomes far more about that question than it does just about Trump. If Smith wanted to keep it about Trump he should've stayed at the court level where he was.

Seriously? Have you not hear of Leonard Leo or the travel gifts, the Thomas financials, etc? It’s baked into the system. Same as corporate personhood and campaign finance.

And you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a constitutional law professor or retired judge who disagrees with you on nearly all of this stuff.

It’s charming you think corruption doesn’t exist.

Again, if there was real evidence of corruption (i.e. a judge changing a vote to suit a benefactor) then it would be prosecuted, both politically (impeachment) and legally (prosecution). All you have is innuendo, biased perceptions, and political talking points. Thomas, for all of his faults, is actually rock steady in how he decides cases. He might be the most inflexible, unchanging judge in the past 50 years. Like I said, that doesn't mean he's a great judge, and a good argument can be made that he's a fairly mediocre one, but again, that doesn't make him corrupt.

As for constitutional law professors or retired judges disagreeing with me, I remember you quoting armies of them when you said the Colorado case was really in debate and Trump was easily disqualified - you didn't quote them as much after that swing and a miss.

Corruption certainly exists, you're strawman arguing that I don't think it does. I, however, like to have corruption proven - you just want to cynically default to assuming it's omnipresent.

[BDKJMU]

Well, if you think so. There's literally no evidence of corruption of any of the justices (questionable activity tied directly to unusual behavior/decision) - heck, given Thomas's wife's activities you would think there would be something that would tie him to those things and we seem not to have found it. I agree that it's not a good look, but there's also an amazing lack of a smoking gun as well.

If Trump's immunity wasn't complicated, then why did Jack Smith take the unheard of step of going right to the Supreme Court to resolve? And again, it's far more about Presidents who aren't Trump, and once you jump to the Supreme Court, it becomes far more about that question than it does just about Trump. If Smith wanted to keep it about Trump he should've stayed at the court level where he was.

Seriously? Have you not hear of Leonard Leo or the travel gifts, the Thomas financials, etc? It’s baked into the system. Same as corporate personhood and campaign finance.

And you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a constitutional law professor or retired judge who disagrees with you on nearly all of this stuff.

It’s charming you think corruption doesn’t exist.

Yeah, just like all those professors and so called legal scholars who said Trump could be removed from the ballots. 9-0 proved they were all a bunch of hacks.

[houndawg]

It’s as much of a leap to say the prosecutorial delays were political.

Presidential immunity as it pertains to Trump’s case is not complicated.

Well, if you think so. There's literally no evidence of corruption of any of the justices (questionable activity tied directly to unusual behavior/decision) - heck, given Thomas's wife's activities you would think there would be something that would tie him to those things and we seem not to have found it. I agree that it's not a good look, but there's also an amazing lack of a smoking gun as well.

If Trump's immunity wasn't complicated, then why did Jack Smith take the unheard of step of going right to the Supreme Court to resolve? And again, it's far more about Presidents who aren't Trump, and once you jump to the Supreme Court, it becomes far more about that question than it does just about Trump. If Smith wanted to keep it about Trump he should've stayed at the court level where he was.

I would have to agree that hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free vacations from Massa Harlan doesn't look very good for his tame Negro or the traitor cunt said tame Negro calls a wife.

[kalm]

Seriously? Have you not hear of Leonard Leo or the travel gifts, the Thomas financials, etc? It’s baked into the system. Same as corporate personhood and campaign finance.

And you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a constitutional law professor or retired judge who disagrees with you on nearly all of this stuff.

It’s charming you think corruption doesn’t exist.

Again, if there was real evidence of corruption (i.e. a judge changing a vote to suit a benefactor) then it would be prosecuted, both politically (impeachment) and legally (prosecution). All you have is innuendo, biased perceptions, and political talking points. Thomas, for all of his faults, is actually rock steady in how he decides cases. He might be the most inflexible, unchanging judge in the past 50 years. Like I said, that doesn't mean he's a great judge, and a good argument can be made that he's a fairly mediocre one, but again, that doesn't make him corrupt.

As for constitutional law professors or retired judges disagreeing with me, I remember you quoting armies of them when you said the Colorado case was really in debate and Trump was easily disqualified - you didn't quote them as much after that swing and a miss.

Corruption certainly exists, you're strawman arguing that I don't think it does. I, however, like to have corruption proven - you just want to cynically default to assuming it's omnipresent.

No squid pro row, just like they promised with Citizens United!




You’re confusing how the judges rule with reality and what the constitution actually says. And it’s tough to impeach someone considering how high the poll is that you place them on.

The establishment can do no wrong!

[GannonFan]

Well, if you think so. There's literally no evidence of corruption of any of the justices (questionable activity tied directly to unusual behavior/decision) - heck, given Thomas's wife's activities you would think there would be something that would tie him to those things and we seem not to have found it. I agree that it's not a good look, but there's also an amazing lack of a smoking gun as well.

If Trump's immunity wasn't complicated, then why did Jack Smith take the unheard of step of going right to the Supreme Court to resolve? And again, it's far more about Presidents who aren't Trump, and once you jump to the Supreme Court, it becomes far more about that question than it does just about Trump. If Smith wanted to keep it about Trump he should've stayed at the court level where he was.

I would have to agree that hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free vacations from Massa Harlan doesn't look very good for his tame Negro or the traitor cunt said tame Negro calls a wife.

Even in satire, the fact that you can type all of that and hit submit is appalling. Be better than that, if you can.

[GannonFan]

Again, if there was real evidence of corruption (i.e. a judge changing a vote to suit a benefactor) then it would be prosecuted, both politically (impeachment) and legally (prosecution). All you have is innuendo, biased perceptions, and political talking points. Thomas, for all of his faults, is actually rock steady in how he decides cases. He might be the most inflexible, unchanging judge in the past 50 years. Like I said, that doesn't mean he's a great judge, and a good argument can be made that he's a fairly mediocre one, but again, that doesn't make him corrupt.

As for constitutional law professors or retired judges disagreeing with me, I remember you quoting armies of them when you said the Colorado case was really in debate and Trump was easily disqualified - you didn't quote them as much after that swing and a miss.

Corruption certainly exists, you're strawman arguing that I don't think it does. I, however, like to have corruption proven - you just want to cynically default to assuming it's omnipresent.

No squid pro row, just like they promised with Citizens United!




You’re confusing how the judges rule with reality and what the constitution actually says. And it’s tough to impeach someone considering how high the poll is that you place them on.

The establishment can do no wrong!

I'm not confusing anything. If someone was corrupt, you should very easily be able to point to a case and say "before he/she got bought off, they would've ruled this way on a case like this - after the expensive trip or other way of ruling, they acutally ruled differently and it benefited the person who paid for the expensive trip". So go ahead, detail that change in behavior or change in ruling based on the undue influence of a wealthy donor. For instance, back when Kennedy was on the Court, he took a lot of paid appearances at international conferences and international think tanks. He became enamored with the idea of using foreign cases as precedents for US trials, and started to use them in his decisions, whereas prior to taking those paid junkets he didn't. Something like that would be an example of outside pressures resulting in changes in decisions. And just to pre-empt this, I have no problem with what Kennedy started to shift towards in terms of jurisprudence, just pointing out how one would take what Thomas has done and prove corruption, if corruption actually existed in that case.

[houndawg]

I would have to agree that hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free vacations from Massa Harlan doesn't look very good for his tame Negro or the traitor cunt said tame Negro calls a wife.

Even in satire, the fact that you can type all of that and hit submit is appalling. Be better than that, if you can.

The truth is often painful but unfortunately its still the truth.

I don't remember you springing to Hillary's defense over the past decade or so that she's been getting hit a lot harder than that right here.

[kalm]

Even in satire, the fact that you can type all of that and hit submit is appalling. Be better than that, if you can.

The truth is often painful but unfortunately its still the truth.

I don't remember you springing to Hillary's defense over the past decade or so that she's been getting hit a lot harder than that right here.

Eh…next thing you know he’ll be describing J6 participants as tourists. And on a scale of 10 for significance it was maybe a 1.

Good thing Ginny and Clarence keep their work separate.

[GannonFan]

Even in satire, the fact that you can type all of that and hit submit is appalling. Be better than that, if you can.

The truth is often painful but unfortunately its still the truth.

I don't remember you springing to Hillary's defense over the past decade or so that she's been getting hit a lot harder than that right here.

Nah, there's so much of that crap on this site (racist stuff, sexist stuff, misogynist stuff) that it's hard and pointless to push back against every instance of it. You're normally not like that, so it was more jarring to see it from you. But hey, if you want to, it's your prerogative.

[GannonFan]

The truth is often painful but unfortunately its still the truth.

I don't remember you springing to Hillary's defense over the past decade or so that she's been getting hit a lot harder than that right here.

Eh…next thing you know he’ll be describing J6 participants as tourists. And on a scale of 10 for significance it was maybe a 1.

Good thing Ginny and Clarence keep their work separate.

Strawmen stuff again when you have trouble debating the question at hand. Starting to be a trend with you. As for the strawman topic, I've never defended Jan 6th people like that and I fully support any and all prosecution of them for their activities that day.

Again, back to the topic you seem to want to run from, if these justices were corrupt, you should easily be able to demonstrate that by listing instances where they ruled differently from their norm and where that shift in judgement benefitted people outside the Court doing the persuading. I gave you the Kennedy example as a primer, now you do the work on the justices you have issues with.

[houndawg]

The truth is often painful but unfortunately its still the truth.

I don't remember you springing to Hillary's defense over the past decade or so that she's been getting hit a lot harder than that right here.

Eh…next thing you know he’ll be describing J6 participants as tourists. And on a scale of 10 for significance it was maybe a 1.

Good thing Ginny and Clarence keep their work separate.

yeah, and Columbia is a threat to western civilization as we know it

[houndawg]

The truth is often painful but unfortunately its still the truth.

I don't remember you springing to Hillary's defense over the past decade or so that she's been getting hit a lot harder than that right here.

Nah, there's so much of that crap on this site (racist stuff, sexist stuff, misogynist stuff) that it's hard and pointless to push back against every instance of it. You're normally not like that, so it was more jarring to see it from you. But hey, if you want to, it's your prerogative.

Thanks for noticing - take it as an indicator of how seriously I view the wife of a SCOTUS judge working to overturn the results of a national election and said judge being so-out-of-touch that he can't see, or doesn't care, and in the case of a SCOTUS judge I believe its much more likely to be the latter, how bad that looks. Especially when you and your wife have taken literally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth gifts from the hard right.

[houndawg]

Eh…next thing you know he’ll be describing J6 participants as tourists. And on a scale of 10 for significance it was maybe a 1.

Good thing Ginny and Clarence keep their work separate.

Strawmen stuff again when you have trouble debating the question at hand. Starting to be a trend with you. As for the strawman topic, I've never defended Jan 6th people like that and I fully support any and all prosecution of them for their activities that day.

Again, back to the topic you seem to want to run from, if these justices were corrupt, you should easily be able to demonstrate that by listing instances where they ruled differently from their norm and where that shift in judgement benefitted people outside the Court doing the persuading. I gave you the Kennedy example as a primer, now you do the work on the justices you have issues with.

....speaking of straw men we weren't talking about the ruling (because we can't yet) but rather the delay in making the ruling. Why does the voting public have to buy a pig in a poke, ganny? We deserve to know the outcome of these dozens of felony indictments before the election whatever the result may be.

[GannonFan]

Strawmen stuff again when you have trouble debating the question at hand. Starting to be a trend with you. As for the strawman topic, I've never defended Jan 6th people like that and I fully support any and all prosecution of them for their activities that day.

Again, back to the topic you seem to want to run from, if these justices were corrupt, you should easily be able to demonstrate that by listing instances where they ruled differently from their norm and where that shift in judgement benefitted people outside the Court doing the persuading. I gave you the Kennedy example as a primer, now you do the work on the justices you have issues with.

....speaking of straw men we weren't talking about the ruling (because we can't yet) but rather the delay in making the ruling. Why does the voting public have to buy a pig in a poke, ganny? We deserve to know the outcome of these dozens of felony indictments before the election whatever the result may be.

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.

[houndawg]

....speaking of straw men we weren't talking about the ruling (because we can't yet) but rather the delay in making the ruling. Why does the voting public have to buy a pig in a poke, ganny? We deserve to know the outcome of these dozens of felony indictments before the election whatever the result may be.

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.

[UNI88]

....speaking of straw men we weren't talking about the ruling (because we can't yet) but rather the delay in making the ruling. Why does the voting public have to buy a pig in a poke, ganny? We deserve to know the outcome of these dozens of felony indictments before the election whatever the result may be.

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.

[GannonFan]

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.

They were slow walked by the prosecution to even bring them to trial, and yes, now the defense is slow walking them as they get to trial. Aren't lawyers wonderful?

[houndawg]

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.

What he doesn't deserve is the ability to pardon himself by instructing the DOJ to deep six his attempt to overthrow the results of an election.


What would be hilarious is him getting the immunity he wants and then losing the election again and Joey B having immunity from however he decides to deal with the situation. Not a likely outcome but damn near fapworthy to contemplate.

[UNI88]

To paraphrase trump campaign managers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles ...

Many of these trials won't complete “until after millions of Americans will have already cast their ballots. This is unacceptable, and by refusing to" accelerate the trials, "they are doing a grave disservice to the American public who deserve to" know the trial results "before voting begins.”

[houndawg]

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

They were slow walked by the prosecution to even bring them to trial, and yes, now the defense is slow walking them as they get to trial. Aren't lawyers wonderful?

They are when you need one - the time I needed one I considered it money well spent even though it was going to cost me $500 either way. Plus I can always look around and see that there's a lot worse than me running around out there