HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 'Almost impossible to ove...

Tue May 12, 2020, 03:47 PM

'Almost impossible to overstate how appalling' Trump's arguments are in Supreme Court case

“Trump believes he should be excused not just from congressional oversight, not just from criminal investigation, not just from questioning by the press, but even from politics itself,” Waldman writes, adding that it’s “almost impossible to overstate how appalling the arguments by Trump’s lawyers have been. They have claimed kingly powers for the president — that while he is in office he can’t be prosecuted or even investigated. That, they say, applies to both Congress and prosecutors.”

[link:https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/almost-impossible-to-overstate-how-appalling-trumps-arguments-are-in-supreme-court-case-columnist/|]

I have an idea. If the court decides that indeed America has a King rather than a President you should all apply to become part of Britain again, after all our Queen would be so much better than your king...

Seriously though surely even his most ardent arse kissers in SCOTUS are not going to rip up the Constitution. I mean I thought America was built on the principal that monarchy and absolute power suck hugely...

35 replies, 4022 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 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply 'Almost impossible to overstate how appalling' Trump's arguments are in Supreme Court case (Original post)
Soph0571 May 2020 OP
Cha May 2020 #1
wcmagumba May 2020 #2
sop May 2020 #7
ffr May 2020 #10
Mr. Ected May 2020 #17
milestogo May 2020 #20
Lonestarblue May 2020 #29
mountain grammy May 2020 #28
catrose May 2020 #3
Lock him up. May 2020 #11
catrose May 2020 #35
Yavin4 May 2020 #4
central scrutinizer May 2020 #5
Yavin4 May 2020 #19
mwooldri May 2020 #25
not fooled May 2020 #18
Yavin4 May 2020 #22
lunatica May 2020 #24
world wide wally May 2020 #6
sfstaxprep May 2020 #8
scarletwoman May 2020 #9
erronis May 2020 #21
Soph0571 May 2020 #31
bucolic_frolic May 2020 #12
ecstatic May 2020 #13
machoneman May 2020 #14
StarzGuy May 2020 #15
Soph0571 May 2020 #32
NewJeffCT May 2020 #16
tclambert May 2020 #23
zentrum May 2020 #26
Soph0571 May 2020 #33
zentrum May 2020 #34
LastLiberal in PalmSprings May 2020 #27
OMGWTF May 2020 #30

Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 03:51 PM

1. KR!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 03:52 PM

2. Unfortunately I believe they will rip it...

That's why they were put there...to make a (thuglican)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wcmagumba (Reply #2)

Tue May 12, 2020, 04:06 PM

7. They'll rip it until a Democrat is in the WH, then we'll have an "independent judiciary" again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sop (Reply #7)

Tue May 12, 2020, 04:09 PM

10. The minute we have a democratic president, it'll be prosecute the Prez times a million

Republicans are masters at flip-flop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ffr (Reply #10)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:44 PM

17. Not if the Supreme Court sets a different precedent

Unless the composition of the Court also changes and America is returned to Americans. Otherwise, providing broad powers to Trump also means providing them to each and every one of his successors, regardless of party.

That being said, Democrats would never push the envelope under those circumstances. We behave ourselves, which means that only half the country is self-policing. The other half is fascist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. Ected (Reply #17)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:48 PM

20. And why would the conservatives on the court do that?

I can't figure out what they are thinking, but I think they are about to set a dangerous precedent.

And we can't count on Democrats to never push the envelope. Once you corrupt the presidency itself, it will corrupt the presidents who follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. Ected (Reply #17)

Tue May 12, 2020, 06:27 PM

29. They'll be overturning the precedent set for Nixon and Clinton if they refuse to let the House subpo

If Trump wins this one, the Roberts Court will forever be known as an extension of the Republican Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wcmagumba (Reply #2)

Tue May 12, 2020, 06:26 PM

28. Agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 03:55 PM

3. I'd happily take HRM Queen Elizabeth over Trump any day. Not BoJo, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catrose (Reply #3)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:24 PM

11. Well, if the corrupt right-wing king-court sh!t on the Constitution...

I say let's go to Canada (Trudeau + SPHC among other beauties except freezing 7 months/year).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lock him up. (Reply #11)

Tue May 12, 2020, 07:45 PM

35. That was my response to Canada during the Bush years: COLD! But I almost brought myself to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 03:57 PM

4. "...all apply to become part of Britain again" At least we'd all have national healthcare.

Although our food would suck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #4)

Tue May 12, 2020, 04:01 PM

5. And the accidents!

As people started driving on the other side of the road

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to central scrutinizer (Reply #5)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:48 PM

19. And bad teeth

And TV shows that are 4 episodes long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #19)

Tue May 12, 2020, 06:13 PM

25. Oh and you'd have to pay a TV license fee.

But then there would be no more PBS pledge drives as all those PBS member stations would become part of the BBC.

It's probably worth it since TV and radio news will be required to have a sense of balance and fairness... OFCOM does enforce this... Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity could not survive on UK TV or radio in their present form - their broadcasters would be fined into oblivion.

And TV shows that are four episodes long? Coronation Street ( a prime time "soap opera" ) has been running since 1960.

As for bad teeth - I say Americans have just as bad teeth because dentistry in the UK and the USA is largely private.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #4)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:47 PM

18. Suits me

as long as I can keep my dentist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to not fooled (Reply #18)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:48 PM

22. Well...uh...it's the UK

Dentistry is illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #4)

Tue May 12, 2020, 06:01 PM

24. We'd have to learn the metric system!

Like everyone else on the planet. I don’t think the MAGATs could tax their brains that much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 04:05 PM

6. Give my vote to the Queen too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 04:06 PM

8. Don't Worry....It Only Applies To repub "presidents" nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 04:07 PM

9. Sorry, I really dislike Raw Story. Here's the actual WaPo link w/ excerpts:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/12/trumps-lawyers-just-made-appalling-arguments-supreme-court/

<snip>
In the lower court rulings as these cases (and others in which Trump has made similar sweeping claims of immunity) make their way up to the Supreme Court, Trump hasn’t just lost. Again and again, judges expressed shock and even outrage at the audacity of his claims before rejecting them out of hand.

Consider the first two cases the Supreme Court heard together, the ones involving congressional subpoenas for his tax returns. The position Trump’s lawyers have taken is essentially that Congress didn’t have a good enough reason to exercise its subpoena power, and therefore the subpoenas are invalid — even though they’re directed at outside companies.

Again and again before the high court, Trump’s lawyers used the word “harassment” to describe Congress’s requests, claiming they had no legitimate legislative purpose. That’s despite the fact that the House explicitly cited their legislative purpose: They need to know what kinds of conflicts of interest Trump has to see if the country’s ethics laws need to be strengthened, not to mention figuring out whether legislation ought to be passed requiring presidents to release their tax returns.

But no, Trump’s lawyers said. That’s not good enough, because what they’re really doing is trying to harass him. It’s just political, and because he’s president, he can shield his personal records from their view.

As Justice Elena Kagan noted, Trump would “essentially make it impossible for Congress to perform oversight and carry out its functions where the presidency is concerned.”

(more at link)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #9)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:48 PM

21. Thank you. OPs - please don't post aggregator's links - use the original where possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Reply #21)

Tue May 12, 2020, 06:56 PM

31. I tried to. I always do where possible

But because I am in the UK sometimes it is not possible to get access to certain news sites in the US

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:29 PM

12. If Trump wins this case I think it will become the norm for citizens

to refuse to file tax returns, or to file bogus ones. Might even resurrect Huey Long - every man a king!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:31 PM

13. The idea that you can't prosecute until a Pres leaves office is ludicrous!

What would stop him from commiting crimes to stay in office?

That's called a dictatorship.

Are the rethugs on the Supreme Court really willing to go down this road?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:33 PM

14. If they decide that way, President Bien MUST start impeachment and removal proceedings against....

Roberts and then all the other winger judges starting with Kavanaugh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:34 PM

15. tRump Packed The Supreme Court

So, now, of course he lost every single time in the lower courts and of course since tRump packed the Supreme court with his tools, they will block the US House of Representative's and NY attorney general subpoenas so that the American people will not see the fraud he committed on all sorts of loan documents and tax returns for the likes of the billions in loans at the likes of Deutsche Bank. Gee, I just can't wait for that decision to be handed down sometime in June.

There is no middle ground. Either the IRS and Deutsche bank will be required to turn over the documents or not. I'm betting not. What say you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarzGuy (Reply #15)

Tue May 12, 2020, 07:02 PM

32. I think even this SCOTUS will not want to rip up the constitution

They will 'fight' to save face with a mild dissenting opinion from the righties, but he will lose. Other then the rabid rapist on the bench, I think all others have enough brains to know that a decision that rips up the constitution will see America damned. They should not have agreed to hear it. They should have sent it back to the lower courts.

We will see. Democracy hangs by a thread on this one I fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:36 PM

16. Neal Katyal & George Conway think it's not a good day for Trump

George is predicting the NY State case will be 8-1 or 9-0 against Trump and 7-2 against Trump in the House/Mazar's case.

Both worked as Solicitors General, so have argued before SCOTUS



?s=20

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:52 PM

23. Trump isn't too keen on why we fought the American Revolution.

He thinks it had something to do with taking control of the airports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 06:16 PM

26. All the countries that

Last edited Tue May 12, 2020, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

...stayed with England have more functioning Democracies today and better safety nets for their citizens. And less slavery in their history.

That Boston Tea Party that was so romanticized in our text books was just an American Tea Corporation revolting against paying taxes to a bigger English Corporation. Not really a bunch of ordinary people yearning to be free.

George Washington was the richest man in the colonies at the time. A slave-oligarch, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zentrum (Reply #26)

Tue May 12, 2020, 07:03 PM

33. Come back home 🤣😀😀 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Reply #33)

Tue May 12, 2020, 07:29 PM

34. Yes! Would love to!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 06:20 PM

27. Jill Wine-Banks just learned that the Nixon and Clinton decisions occurred too recently to be used

as precedent. At least that's what the government attorneys argued.

She burst out laughing in surprise. Stephanie Miller, who was interviewing her and passed on the argument that had been made by the government, remarked, "I've never seen anything surprise Jill Wine-Banks before."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LastLiberal in PalmSprings (Reply #27)

Tue May 12, 2020, 06:50 PM

30. I set my alarm so I don't miss Charlie Pierce on Stephanie's show

Tuesdays around 7:30am PT. Stephanie is da bomb!

PS - I spend winters in Palm Springs but my heart lives there year-round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread