HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Please don't get upset or...

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:05 PM

Please don't get upset or worked up about the Supreme Court taking these cases

Accepting cert does NOT mean the Court is going to side with Trump. In fact, it could very well mean the opposite.

Take a breath, everyone.

94 replies, 4932 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 94 replies Author Time Post
Reply Please don't get upset or worked up about the Supreme Court taking these cases (Original post)
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 OP
H2O Man Dec 2019 #1
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #5
H2O Man Dec 2019 #10
wnylib Dec 2019 #42
H2O Man Dec 2019 #50
wnylib Dec 2019 #51
BigDemVoter Dec 2019 #54
H2O Man Dec 2019 #56
wnylib Dec 2019 #59
VMA131Marine Dec 2019 #2
still_one Dec 2019 #3
jberryhill Dec 2019 #15
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #18
jberryhill Dec 2019 #23
still_one Dec 2019 #41
jberryhill Dec 2019 #44
still_one Dec 2019 #45
jberryhill Dec 2019 #46
underthematrix Dec 2019 #4
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #6
jberryhill Dec 2019 #16
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #17
OliverQ Dec 2019 #7
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #9
OliverQ Dec 2019 #74
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #79
SayItLoud Dec 2019 #33
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #39
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #8
barbtries Dec 2019 #11
FiveGoodMen Dec 2019 #12
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #14
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #20
jberryhill Dec 2019 #24
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #25
jberryhill Dec 2019 #26
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #37
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #27
MarcA Dec 2019 #35
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #36
Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #69
Codeine Dec 2019 #73
Hekate Dec 2019 #13
Sneederbunk Dec 2019 #19
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #21
True Blue American Dec 2019 #88
Grasswire2 Dec 2019 #22
MarcA Dec 2019 #38
Grasswire2 Dec 2019 #58
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #76
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #80
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #83
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #84
MarcA Dec 2019 #92
FBaggins Dec 2019 #86
wnylib Dec 2019 #47
Baked Potato Dec 2019 #28
CanonRay Dec 2019 #29
bluestarone Dec 2019 #30
SayItLoud Dec 2019 #31
bucolic_frolic Dec 2019 #32
Imperialism Inc. Dec 2019 #34
jcgoldie Dec 2019 #52
aggiesal Dec 2019 #40
angrychair Dec 2019 #43
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #48
Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #49
stillcool Dec 2019 #60
Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #67
iluvtennis Dec 2019 #53
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #55
iluvtennis Dec 2019 #57
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #61
dware Dec 2019 #66
iluvtennis Dec 2019 #68
Kablooie Dec 2019 #62
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #63
Kablooie Dec 2019 #64
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #65
Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #70
Garrett78 Dec 2019 #71
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #72
Bettie Dec 2019 #75
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #81
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #77
mucifer Dec 2019 #78
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #82
bluestarone Dec 2019 #85
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #89
bluestarone Dec 2019 #91
Doormouse Dec 2019 #87
StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #90
ehrnst Dec 2019 #94
Politicub Dec 2019 #93

Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:08 PM

1. Recommended.

Also, do not expect anyone to recuse themselves because Trump appointed them. Rehnquist did in the Nixon case because he worked within the afministration, not because Nixon appointed him. Keep in mind how others Nixon had appointed voted in that case.

This is a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:09 PM

5. Thank you

And thank you for pre-empting the Rehnquist argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:16 PM

10. More than glad to.

I've seen some friends here suggesting two Justices recuse themselves. I think memories have faded in regard to why Rehnquist did. And it is really important to keep in mind that Nixon was bitterly disappointed that those he appointed didn't support him above the Constitution.

Sometimes, conservative judges are better in such cases, as republicans cannot pretend their rulings are "political."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:43 PM

42. True, but times were different then. Today

the Republican Party is in tight lock step. Remember, SCOTUS delivered the WH to Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wnylib (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:07 PM

50. Oh, yes, definitely.

The USSC is imperfect, and has made a number of horrible decisions. And there are a few justices on the court that I wouldn't trust to decide a traffic ticket. Yet there have also been important decisions protecting the Constitution, and I think there are enough competent people on the court that we are likely to get the correct decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #50)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:20 PM

51. You have more faith in them and more optimism

than I have. A June decision is so close to the election that I cannot even imagine a decision that would rule against him. Not from a conservative court with 2 members appointed by him.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wnylib (Reply #51)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:32 PM

54. Agree 100%

I don't trust those fucking a-holes one little bit. . . . Brett Kavanaugh has already shown what's he's made of, and it's repig SHIT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wnylib (Reply #51)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:34 PM

56. Interesting.

In my early life, I learned to not trust anyone. It was from the teachings of Malcolm X that as a poor kid from a rural small farm that this began to shift. Malcolm taught the advantages of placing people on a scale of zero to one hundred, per how much you can safely trust them. He noted that it isn't safe to trust anyone -- not even your self -- 100%. But that there are some that are zeroes.

Now, my experience with public officials is pretty close to that of the individuals I met with as a forensic mental health worker. Much of that "public" experience came by way of my work with Rubin "Hurricane" Carter and with Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman. Not all of those experiences were positive -- that's for sure!

Some times, ordinary people do extraordinary things. Likewise, under certain circumstances, even bad people can do the right thing. I'm hoping that is the case here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:45 PM

59. Well, I do not trust everyone and I do not distrust

everyone. But I do distrust people who demonstrate that they are not trustworthy. Once they do that, they have to prove themselves to me and it will be harder for them to win over my skepticism.

SCOTUS has not won me over since 2000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:08 PM

2. It only takes 4 votes to approve cert, not a majority,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:09 PM

3. What disturbs me is the delay. They really should expedite it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:33 PM

15. Has either party yet moved to do that?

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:36 PM

18. Didn't they already do that when they agreed to ask the Court to rule this term?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:45 PM

23. I guess

 


How late do they usually take a case for the current term?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:42 PM

41. ???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:46 PM

44. Ah...

 


For a court to do something, someone has to ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #44)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:49 PM

45. and i dont know.the answer to your inqiry. Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:52 PM

46. Neither do I

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:09 PM

4. My question is why are they waiting until March to hear case and then June

to rule. They know Trump is being impeached and the docs requested are part of the inquiry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:10 PM

6. These requests aren't part of the impeachment inquiry.

They're part of separate investigations and the outcome of the case will have no bearing on impeachment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:34 PM

16. Because that is the ordinary schedule

 


One of the parties, however, may very well move to expedite the schedule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:35 PM

17. Because that's the way the Supreme Court calendar works.

Apparently no request has been made (yet) for expedited review, as in the Nixon tapes case. And these cases aren't directly related to the impeachment issues anyhow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:11 PM

7. The law is already settled and all the lower courts sided against Trump.

 

The current makeup of the court and the fact that McConnell basically bought the Judiciary indicates they're only taking this up to establish new precedent that Congress has no oversight in this area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OliverQ (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:15 PM

9. Not true

This is not settled law. These are cases of first impression and the cases that have been decided are binding only in their individual circuits - meaning courts in other circuits could rule differently. It's very possible the Court has taken the case in order to settle the issue once and for all.

And obviously McConnell doesn't have the control over the courts you think, as evidenced by the string of losses Trump has faced in district and appellate courts across the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 12:03 PM

74. The majority of Trump's losses were in front of Obama, Clinton, or Bush

 

Judges. We see with Judge Rao in the DC Circuit that his judges are leaning towards siding with him with terrible legal reasoning. It won't be long until the over 150 right-wing, unqualified Trump judges McConnell has been stacking start getting more Trump related cases and siding with him.

You're truly naive if you think the Judiciary is going to save Democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OliverQ (Reply #74)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 12:37 PM

79. 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Bushes, Obama or Clinton

So, the precedent that all of the lower courts (even the Trump judges) willl have to follow is being set by a court that, by your standards, is more likely to rule against Trump.

And, FYI, I'm not being naive. I'm simply stating facts based on how the courts actually work, not engaging in "We're DOOMED" hysteria based on assumptions not rooted in reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OliverQ (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:08 PM

33. Am I correct they combined all the cases?

If so, that seems very odd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SayItLoud (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:36 PM

39. Yes, they did

Actually, it's not odd at all. It's not uncommon for a court to consolidate cases that are connected or turn on similar issues, as these do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:14 PM

8. Because there are three cases addressing basically the same issues -

separation of powers and the authority of Congress to conduct oversight - it makes sense that they would hear them to resolve the questions. I wouldn't read any more into it than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:23 PM

11. it feels predictable.

i am discouraged. not worked up necessarily. weary of it all and at a low point hope-wise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:24 PM

12. Yes, here's the graveyard...

...and here's us whistling past it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:30 PM

14. Not at all

I suspect that just about every lawyer on DU who is familiar with the Court will say the same thing I'm saying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:37 PM

20. I agree with you. There are three cases that raised important issues

related to the separation of powers doctrine, and it makes sense to hear them in order to resolve those questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #20)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:46 PM

24. Meh

 


The subpoena is directed at a third party, so it could have been left alone. It's not going after any Constitutional actor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:48 PM

25. But the issue is whether a president can assert absolute immunity from investigation

so the issue is directly related

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:55 PM

26. That issue is not necessary to resolution of the case

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:34 PM

37. That issue is essential to resolve one of the cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:58 PM

27. True, but as I understand it that's not the only case.

There were three sets of subpoenas. One of them was directed to Mazars from the Manhattan DA for eight years of tax records related to the Stormy Daniels hush-money payments. The second one came from the House Oversight Committee, which wants to know about the hush money and also whether Trump misstated the value of his assets to obtain loans or reduce his taxes. The third set of subpoenas were issued by the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees and were addressed to Deutsche Bank and Capital One, seeking financial records related Trump, his family and his businesses. So the latter two cases involve the power of the House to exercise oversight by demanding a president's financial information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:25 PM

35. Agreed and lawyer talk doesn't change reality. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MarcA (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:31 PM

36. "Lawyer talk"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 10:10 PM

69. it's The Sanity Clause ...




(From A Night At The Opera, I think)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 11:37 PM

73. All yer high-falutin' big words and stuff

donít matter none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:30 PM

13. KnR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:37 PM

19. What it could mean is that a decision will be delayed until after the election.

Mission Accomplished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sneederbunk (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:38 PM

21. No, they are saying it will be released this term, in June.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sneederbunk (Reply #19)


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:43 PM

22. NOTHING tells us we should hope for the best here and expect it to be.

We have to start working backwards, based now on repeated evidence and performance of this administration.

Expect the worst in every situation and work to prevent that worst from happening.

When we "take the high road" we have found the bridge sabotaged beneath us. Over and over and over again.

Stop expecting any good will, honorable intentions, bipartisanship or even competency from the other side.

This is a fight for America, as surely as was the fight of the 18th century against a monarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grasswire2 (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:36 PM

38. Separation of Powers Question to be decided by the Branch

that is more equal than the other two. Unelected job-for-life rulers,
they are the monarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MarcA (Reply #38)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:42 PM

58. If Dems sweep in 2020, it's time to take up some matters.

Term limits or rotating terms for SCOTUS. Term limits for Congress. A review of the presidential powers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grasswire2 (Reply #58)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 12:21 PM

76. Those things would require constitutional amendments

and could not be accomplished only by Democrats in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #76)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 12:39 PM

80. It couldn't be accomplished by Congress even if Democrats did have the numbers

Constitutional amendments also have to be ratified by the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #80)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 12:49 PM

83. Exactly. Constitutional amendments aren't quite impossible, but almost;

the process is very, very slow and usually doesn't go very far. In 230-some years only 33 amendments have been ratified and some were repealed (we now have 27), although approximately 10,000 have been proposed. So to glibly suggest that "we" should just amend the Constitution to do something or other ignores the reality of the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #83)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 12:58 PM

84. You're right, as usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #83)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 04:15 PM

92. Agreed. The amendments process is not a promising choice.

What to do then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MarcA (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 01:22 PM

86. Not at all

It will be decided by two branches of government against the third... exactly as was intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grasswire2 (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:54 PM

47. Agree completely. We have to fight hard. not

necessarily fight dirty, but we must recognize what we are up against and cannot afford to pretend that it is.business
as usual any more. It is not and the sooner we recognize that and act accordingly, the better.

I lost faith in the Supremes in 2000 and they have done little to restore it since.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:58 PM

28. Thanks for your postings

Much appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:59 PM

29. This case scares the hell out of me.

I didn't think they'd touch it. I cannot for the life of me see how they could possibly side with Trump, but.......................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:05 PM

30. Would it be a bad idea or good idea for

The House or NY to ask for a speedier decision? I almost believe a faster decision would benefit the House AND NY. Your thoughts please. I feel there is NOTHING more important in our country right now that would over ride this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:05 PM

31. Or that, they reply in April or March;

Since it's so close to an election, we don't want the court to have undue influence; one way or the other therefore we will take this up in December 2020. Just sayin....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:06 PM

32. Courts can't function if information is secret

Subpoenas, discovery, police reports all dependent on information. Presidents would have been dictator a long time ago if SCOTUS had accepted a ruling like this. So yes, on the surface, it's not a lot to worry about. Except for the Imperialist Gang of Five.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:09 PM

34. There's every reason to be concerned.

It only takes 4 to grant cert but if those 4 are pretty certain the swing vote, John Roberts, is just going to let the prior decisions stand then they have no reason to look like a bunch of partisan hacks. The fact they've taken the case means that either they have reason to believe Roberts is persuadable or that the 4 are such blatant partisan hacks they are willing to do anything for Trump. Neither is a good thing.

There is a good discussion from a few weeks back on the Opening Arguments podcast about the calculus here. https://openargs.com/tag/trump-tax-returns/ (around the 59 minute mark)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Imperialism Inc. (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:24 PM

52. The reason they would do it is the same reason the republicans have been doing everything

Run out the clock to election day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:40 PM

40. They should have never taken the case ...

As DU Member cstanleytech replied in an early post

There is no clause in the Constitution that gives the Court the power to block Congress
from conducting its own investigation into the actions of a President.
If the Court tries to force an opinion that blocks congress, that opinion would be a violation
of the Constitution as the Constitution specifically gives the power to Congress to be a
check on a President and they cannot do that job should the Court try to block them.

How would Congress get remedy from that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:44 PM

43. Sure the intent is to be positive

But given recent statements by the Senate majority leader and the seemingly persistent and relentless rise in Executive branch power, we have already devolved into fascism and a unitary authority government.
The USSC has no more authority over trump than Congress.
The Hollow Men poem comes to mind:
"This is how the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #43)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:57 PM

48. This isn't about trying to be positive. I'm trying to help people understand what this means and doe

The granting of cert is not grounds for jumping to the doom and gloom conclusions that some are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:00 PM

49. "Take a breath, everyone." Is that safe now?

Pollution for profit is real, again. If we can't get that thing out of our White House, and most of his like-minded minions out of various elected positions, the whole world is going to look like Los Angeles back in the late '60s.

Oh, you were just talking about the SCOTUS thingy. By the time they get around to ruling, we may all be nuclear ash or already know whether or not the Turd Reich has begun.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hermit-The-Prog (Reply #49)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:46 PM

60. que sera, sera...

Even though I presume to know the future, I really don't, and neither does anyone else. Why does the expression of hope, bring out the nasty in people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stillcool (Reply #60)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 09:59 PM

67. "Here be dragons"

We are in unexplored territory. There's no way to know whether SCOTUS will aid in defense of democracy or its destruction. As indicated in the OP, we cannot know how the ruling will go and it will not come soon. The timing means there's nothing to get worked up about now. Any ruling that comes in June of next year may inspire more people to get involved, which can be a good thing.

What nasty? Did I miss something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:30 PM

53. But it's yet another stonewall delay for trum. Court hears case in March 2020. Ruling in June.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iluvtennis (Reply #53)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:34 PM

55. This still leaves plenty of time

But what do you think a better alternative would have been?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #55)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:36 PM

57. To let the lower court rulings stand. Did the SC have to take this appeal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iluvtennis (Reply #57)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:51 PM

61. If they had let the lower court ruling stand, he'd just come up with another excuse

and/or raised the same issue in a different court - and without the Supreme Court weighing in to resolve this issue now, he could have delayed this long past the election.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Trump lawyers are NOT thrilled that the Supreme Court has taken this case and will decide it by June. This could go very badly for Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #61)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 09:05 PM

66. Thank you again StarfishSaver

for trying to educate the naysayers and doomers and gloomers about this issue.

Personally, I think the Mango Menace is in for a very rude surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #61)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 10:08 PM

68. Thanks... appreciate your thoughts. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:56 PM

62. But they won't decide until June so Trump is fully protected until then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #62)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:57 PM

63. Protected from what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #63)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:58 PM

64. Protected from having his taxes scrutinized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 09:00 PM

65. I'm willing to wait

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 10:19 PM

70. is he?

This doesn't include the case of the House Ways and Means committee, does it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 10:43 PM

71. In sane times, the court wouldn't hear the case. But the US is just a giant asylum at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #71)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 10:54 PM

72. In sane times, such a case would never have come before the Court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 12:17 PM

75. We've been told over and over that it will all be OK

and still, at every turn, it gets worse.

What I've learned is that our system only works if all parties agree that laws are a thing.

Currently, one side doesn't believe that and there is, apparently, no method or means of enforcing anything.

I believe that the court will side with him because I've come to the realization that for right wingers, there is no low that they won't sink it.

Party over country, every single time.

I hope I'm wrong, but I have very little hope left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #75)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 12:43 PM

81. How has it gotten worse?

So far, Trump has lost nearly every court case.

The courts have rejected all of Trump's attempts to expand his power and to limit Congress's.

Things have definitely. It "gotten worse."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 12:25 PM

77. Barbara McQuaid made some interesting remarks about this case:

She said she thinks the Supremes will uphold the lower courts' decisions, not only because there is so much precedent supporting those decisions, but because it gives the court a great opportunity to establish its independence from the executive and its power as an equal branch of the government. Even the conservative justices don't want to be seen as the president's lackeys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 12:35 PM

78. I hate to say that we need to consider RBG's health

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mucifer (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 12:44 PM

82. I don't think that's a factor in this instance

Because I don't believe the decision will be a close one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #82)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 01:11 PM

85. Just for the record here

If tRUMP were to resign, would this case be DROPPED? and never answered? Like in March sometime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Reply #85)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 02:45 PM

89. Great question!

I don't know the answer for sure. On the one hand, the argument that he has some kind of temporary immunity
would no longer be an issue because he'd no longer be president. But the Court could still decide the issue still raises a "case in controversy" that needs to be ruled upon.

He'd also probably invoke other defenses unrelated to his position as president, including arguing that Congress doesn't have the power to obtain private citizens' financial records.

Interesting to think about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #89)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 03:05 PM

91. TY for your response!

I would hope they would rule on just the premise of the power of ANY presidential power in this regard. THIS does need to be decided being we're this close. Could (would) the House include this in their argument in March? Thanks again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 01:26 PM

87. I have individual rights concerns.

 

I see the house requests as an unrestrained expedition in hopes of finding something. Let us examine anything we want in hopes of finding something bad. Just doesnít feel right to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doormouse (Reply #87)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 02:48 PM

90. Seriously?

This is one of the arguments Trump's lawyers are making. It's be and is no more legally or constitutionally valid when posed here than coming from them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doormouse (Reply #87)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 11:25 AM

94. Take it easy on that straw man there ... "unrestrained?"

If one feels a need to misrepresent someone else's argument in order to make one's point, then perhaps one needs to reexamine the point one is trying to make.

Especially if that point is the same one Trump's lawyers are trying to push.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 04:17 PM

93. Good advice. It's hard sometimes, though.

It feels like the dominionists have the end goal in their sights and are moving forward at full speed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread