Posted on 04/25/2024 6:57:53 AM PDT by janetjanet998
LIVE AT 9:50! Oral arguments in SCOTUS immunity case
So Mr. Dreeben (for The Swamp) wants the President to be accountable TO THE COURTS, in practically everything except some few specific powers under Article II of the Constitution.
"Graciously(?)", Mr. Dreeben seeks a set of COURT-ORDERED rules for reviewing actions by the President.
Meanwhile, regarding January 6, 2021, Mr. Dreeben and the (establishment?) majority of Judiciary comments so far, seem to indicate that their view is, that THERE WAS NO VOTE FRAUD for President Trump's actions, and his supporters, to stand upon.
amen to that.
This is Zen Master’s take. Either 6-3 for Trump or 7-2.
It should be obvious that if a President doesn’t have immunity, then ANY state prosecutor ANYWHERE could concoct a “case” and indict any and all previous CinC’s. W would face war crimes trials, Zero would be indicted for murdering a U.S. citizen and Rutabaga would be charged with conspiracy to overturn the government via the illegal invasion.
It should be obvious that if a President doesn’t have immunity, then ANY state prosecutor ANYWHERE could concoct a “case” and indict any and all previous CinC’s. W would face war crimes trials, Zero would be indicted for murdering a U.S. citizen and Rutabaga would be charged with conspiracy to overturn the government via the illegal invasion.
No, they do not control the Supreme Court. This court has ruled over 95% in favor of conservative principles since ACB got there.
So Justice Department argued that the president will only have legal protection from post-office prosecutions if he does exactly what the lawyers in the Department of Justice and in the Office of Legal Counsel tell him to do? As Justice Gorsuch (?) suggested, this will lead to either “Yes Men” Attorney General appointments or de rigueur self-pardons and pardons of all appointees. I didn’t hear anything about the weaponization of these post-office prosecutions against former president candidates like President Trump. Given the tone of the questions, I suggest a muddled decision which may mitigate but not dismiss the current prosecutions of President Trump. A precedent could also easily be set by this case that firmly establishes the authority of the entrenched bureaucracy to control future presidents.
will they rule on this in June as typical or will we see it earlier than that? seems especially important to hear sooner but....
As noted, what if the President disbands the OLC?
No, they do not control the Supreme Court. This court has ruled over 95% in favor of conservative principles since ACB got there.
when are they due to rule on immunity? late June or earlier? what other DJT cases are in front of SCOTUS right now? I know there’s at least one J6 case...what else?
I just heard late June, I think they may kick this can.
I hope not but I think you’re right...
Don't be lame.
When your assignment is to disrupt conservative online communication — which it clearly is, you wet-behind-the-ears wannabe — be less freaking obvious about it.
You have a point.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel, apparently.
Smells like retread, to me :-)
And, total fraud!
I stand corrected.
Don’t be rude.
Oh, that is truly rich, coming from a plant *n00b*.
I just heard late June ...
That’s an eternity, in an election year.
He/she/it is out of its depth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.