Ah, this explains your stupidity. It wasn't just a randoms judge's opinion, it was a former Court of Appeals judge in addition to many Professors of constitutional law who were interpreting the DC District's ct appeal's decision. Again it is funny to hear how sure of yourself you are in contrast to these professionals who disagree with you.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Yeah, because there are only one or two federal judges. The expert I provided was the exact words from the supreme court. You can't get more expert than that. I keep offering you a ladder, but you continue to try to dig down to get out. Why you want to ignore these people who are saying the supreme court is just narrowing a broad opinion (something they do all of the time) is weird. I've never seen someone who purposely makes themselves look stupid the way you do. I can only assume you are trolling at this point, so I'll just stop. I'll let you have the final word to embarrass yourself one more time.
He's not trolling. He believes it. He simply can't get out of his own way with respect to the talking points and the hatred for all things orange. Sometimes, admitting you were wrong and got sucked in due to the partisanship is the hardest part. Heck, he still wants to address Biden's problems at the border by arguing that Obama had a higher percentage of deportation over Trump.
I don't know why the only issue wasn't the decision to decide out of thin air that Trump was an insurrectionest. How the hell can you do that? The Constitution is largely devoted to disalllowing that kind of third world shenanigan. They didn't even have a Liz Cheney-flavored kangaroo court backing them. They just had Liz Cheney. Suck on this, Liz, America gets the win..
It's not even really about Trump is what's crazy about it. Yes, Trump is the defendant, but it's about the law. Plenty of experts out there are saying that they are simply doing what they do on a regular basis. Narrowing a broad ruling that has a big impact on the country.
Coming from him, how is this not direct proof that orange will never get a fair shake in DC? The jury pool is incredibly bias and nowhere near neutral.
The alleged crimes happened in DC. Where would you want the trial to be?
You are correct and that is normally what happens. However, this is an issue that courts have to deal with all the time. The question is whether they can go through an extensive process of questioning called voir dire in an attempt to seat a neutral jury. My point is simply that no amount of questioning is ever going to seat a neutral jury for orangeman in DC. In such instances, courts will move the trial somewhere else. NC from one county to another would be a common example. The better question is whether there is anywhere that Trump can truly get a fair trial?
So if you think he can't get a fair trial anywhere, then DC is just as good a place as any. But let's wait to see what happens first. I realize almost everyone here has already decided on Trump's guilt/innocence on the charges, but I'll hold off until I see the case presented. And unless there is overwhelming proof to the contrary, I'm going to give the jury the benefit of the doubt.
alex murdaugh was convicted of double murder in colleton county just last year…i would’ve bet a lot he was going to walk just because of location, nevermind the evidence.
And here you are assuming the outcome. There is potential to narrow or even broaden, but it isn't the SCOTUS requirement to reach out and solve "potential" issues ahead of time that may or may not even arise in the future. They're a court of law, not a legislature, this issue doesn't have to be touched.
PS, the guy you are quoting is speculating on the meaning of 29 words.
LMAO. You've outdone yourself this time. After having said what you just did, remind us where you stood on the reversal of R vs. W.
And the two situations are not the same anyway. It IS the SCOTUS' job to interpret the law and the Constitution, and that includes defining the scope as it applies to a lower court ruling. They are not creating law by doing so, as was done with R vs. W., and they are not solving future problems but rather addressing an existing one. By taking the case, they are doing precisely what they are supposed to be doing.
LOL, are we even talking about the same thing here? Or am I missing something as badly as you seem to have missed the mark here?
Well, depends on how you measure things. I would say they aren't anywhere near equivalent as the former is not even remotely addressed by the Constitution whereas the latter is addressed directly. I've asked this several times, but you never want to respond with your interpretation of the actual words in our Constitution that deal with abortion. It's because there are none, so it's a question without an answer.
I'm not at all sure why you are so bent out of shape over the SCt addressing "presidential criming" and thinking that's something they wouldn't have within their scope. I mean, I know you want to get orange at all costs and want these lower court decisions to stand when they are against him, but what part of that makes you think the supremes don't get to ultimately decide these types of issues? And, here is the part you even fail to consider: how are you going to feel if the Court rules against Trump and his claims? Are you going to suddenly change your position or will you still argue that they should never have been involved? That's the problem when you work backwards from an assumed ruling vs. a desired result.
Cuz the DC District appeals court addressed the matter adequately. Go read their decision... how dangerous is it that their decision isn't left alone?
Someone is going to yell at me for having a blinding bias, but EVERYONE is saying SCOTUS will not grant Trump the immunity he's seeking.
AGAIN - I want Trump to run. He's Biden's ONLY chance of winning. So I don't care about the decision to hear with respect to Trump's immunity. It impacts timing of J6 trial, and could potentially impact J6 but that was probably going to take too long anyway.
I do care about the outcome of them hearing it, obviously nobody should be above the law.
They can weigh-in on everything in the world if there weren't time-contraints, but there are. I feel they could hear many other more important matters, this seems like a waste of time.
I won't be surprised at all if they are extremely fast on this one and don't give him the immunity he is seeking. I think it is a waste of their time.
Last edited:
i went out and voted for Haley ... 10 minutes later i was using FB for my business and it went down 👀☠️
Seems like poor planning given that NC'rs are happy with Trump but also happy with Gov Cooper.
'adequately' according to who? You? Don't make me laugh any harder than I am already..
ETA..and BTW I already read the decision and commented on its flaws.
so we should go by what, according to you, 'everyone is saying' and not what the SCOTUS has decided to do. Got it. LMAO.
more important than an ex-prez who is trying his best to run for re-election? You're right, they should probably be hearing a case where someone is disputing the authority behind a sign ordinance.
we'll alert the media.
I hate to tell you, but I have never witnessed a run of posts that screamed sour grapes and raw fear more than these of yours do lately. Is it that you want Biden to win that badly, or is it that you don't want to face the embarrassment of having many months of your words thrown back in your face? Don't worry, I'm sure no one here is so crass as to say I told you so. Nod, nod, wink, wink.
please explain how this equivalence, or lack thereof, matters in any way when the issue is not the subject matter but whether the SCOTUS acts legislatively or not.
Those goalposts getting heavy yet?
There is no way they're going to give him what he wants, so yes, with respect to the DC Appeals courts decision, they should let that lie.
ETA: "they" referring to the whole court, WTF knows what Ginni & Clarence will want.
Does everyone remember that one time when Trump was POTUS and democracy ended?
Last edited:
Wait,... you actually want Biden to be President again? I thought you were just on that train because of the TDS. But here you are actually saying you want Biden. Ooof.
What are the time constraints? I mean, why the hurry?
Yeah. He was such a threat to democracy that democracy sustained. And because he was unable to end democracy the first time, his election would signal the end this time because well, this time is different.
The left can't even get their collective hysteria in order to make it make sense. And some people want them running the country. It would be hilarious if it weren't real life.
you are truly deranged. The SCOTUS doesn't, or isn't supposed to, operate according to any particular desired consequence or any particular result (as was the case with the lib court and R vs. W) but rather to the law according to the Constitution under which consequences come about as they rightfully will. Of course, how things are affected are taken into account, but only in a general sense and not per any unique specific occurrence. Example after example has been trotted past you of them doing exactly that (acting impartially and with respect to legality), and yet you still insist that the conservative element of the court is out to promote conservative causes.
You need to relax and adjust to what may be coming. My recommendation to you comes from Bobby Knight....if you know rape is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it. Hey, he said it not me.
In another glaring admission of not understanding the appeal process, this is literally one of the options for the supremes. They could simply affirm the decision and leave it alone. Do you understand that the DC court ruling isn't binding on all the other circuits and they could go a completely different direction in the future? That's not the case when the SCt puts it on paper.
I have commented previously that I expect him to get far less than he wants, but that doesn't mean he gets nothing. The SCt's purpose is to draw such lines.
Except for the goal of Biden beating Trump, I don't understand the obsession with this in terms of timing. The SCt has the ability to address things expediently when needed. Look at the ruling on Monday - you know, the unanimous one smacking the hands of the Dem. AG's et al. across the land. If the DC appeals court had ruled that Trump had complete immunity and "fully addressed" it, would you have wanted it to end there with the J6 case being dismissed and no decision of the supremes prior to the election?
Incidentally, if this wasn't all fun and games being played in an attempt to control the election, your man Jack Smith could have gotten his indictment a little sooner than 2 1/2 years after the event in question. The timing and his filings asking for things since are on him.
But it isn't necessary, since the matter we're discussing (a pres being above the law) is practically unfathomed.
It isn't about 'hurry'. It is about time being better spent on other cases. "Each Term, approximately 5,000-7,000 new cases are filed in the Supreme Court.... Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is currently granted in about just 80 of those cases each Term, and the Court typically disposes of about 100 or more cases without plenary review."
It absolutely needed to be heard by SCOTUS and you can barely compare the two.... huge difference tween a state court and a federal appeals court making rulings. PS, there were some conservatives requesting those across the land, not just Dem AGs.
This is a wonky hypothetical. Tell me what their constitutional basis would've been, then i'll tell you if I'd be okay with it ending it there vs needing to go to SCOTUS.
Maybe they (Merrick Garland, other dem illuminati) want Trump on the ballot Nov 3rd just like I do.
It "isn't necessary" only because you fully support the ruling of the lower court and don't want the possibility of it being altered. You likely would have made the same argument about Dobbs. And stop simply parroting the talking point of no one is above the law. The entire point is for them to decide the application of the law. And btw, all kinds of people are above the law if this is how you want to apply the phrase. Many, many officials have what is known as qualified immunity. That's not being above the law. It simply means that the law doesn't apply to them in that capacity. Further, you are assuming guilt. But like I said the other day, you still likely believe that orange wrestled away the beast to drive from the rally to the Capitol.
Again, this would all be done and wrapped up by now if good ole Jackie boy had brought his indictment even a year sooner. You really think this timing was coincidental????
Don't care, not applicable to my beef that they shouldn't have granted cert. And if they want a dem to win in 2024 then they'd intentionally drag their feet.
PS 6 Repubs and one unaffiliated were the people bringing the effort to boot Trump off the ballot in Colo, not some Dem AG. https://www.axios.com/2024/02/06/norma-anderson-trump-colorado-ballot-case
The DC Appeals court already did an adequate job of deciding the application of the law, according to scholars from bosides.
I’ll need to see all the other cases before I can rank them in order of importance. Have you gone through them all?
Aren’t the SC justices scholars themselves? Apparently, those scholars don’t feel an adequate job was done. I’d even say they’re more scholarly than the scholars you’re citing.
blazers never disappoints:
”But it isn't necessary, since the matter we're discussing (a pres being above the law) is practically unfathomed.“
Well hell’s bells, if it’s “practically unfathomed”… LOL
”But it isn't necessary, since the matter we're discussing (a pres being above the law) is practically unfathomed.“
Well hell’s bells, if it’s “practically unfathomed”… LOL
Similar threads
