Democrats Should Go on the Offensive Against the Supreme Court - The Rude Pundit

[GigiLeigh]

Last edited Sun Mar 3, 2024, 05:31 PM - Edit history (1)

*snip*

Last week, the Supreme Court not only decided to hear Trump's appeal of the ironclad, unanimous ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that "no, you motherfucker, you're not fucking immune from crimes because you were president, what fucking bullshit is that, get the fuck out of our court, fuck" or words to that effect, while legal scholars across the political spectrum agreed, adding "Go fuck yourself. You're not a king." But the high court took over two weeks to make that decision and, instead of saying, "We know both sides are ready to go. Let's do this," set the week April 22 as when they'll hear the case. Then it might not rule until some fuckin' time in June.

It was such obvious election interference in Trump's favor that you almost have to respect how blatant the whole thing was, like a coordinated effort to bring a dictatorship into being. They are doing everything they can to push the January 6 case back as far as possible, to after the election, if they can, because they've put a hold on the case progressing until they rule. It's fucked beyond fucked, and I'm kind of pissed that liberal Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson didn't at least issue a dissent, if not spill all the tea about what the hell is going on.

So, fuck it. The Judiciary is co-equal, right? Democratic leaders should act like it and go on the attack. They should call into question the ethics of all of the conservatives, especially that dick Clarence Thomas, whose wife was literally coordinating with people during the insurrection. They should demand an explanation for why the case was taken, since none was given. They should organize protests and behave like the court has gone rogue because the court has fucking well gone rogue against democracy. (Although, for fuck's sake, don't show up at their houses or SWAT them. Just fucking don't.)

*snip*


https://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2024/03/democrats-should-go-on-offensive.html

[BlueKota]

1. There's very little doubt in my mind that

it was to protect Diaper Donny by delaying the trials. If there were only 1 or 2 former federal prosecutors or retired judges who when asked said the D.C. Cicut Court addressed every argument that could be raised about the presidental immunity issue, that be one thing.

Almost all of them, said there was nothing left for the Supreme Court to decide, yet they not only take up the case, but take their own sweet time in doing so, and leave extra time for the defense teams' same old already discredited arguments.

It really stinks that there is no way to hold them accountable for their misdeeds. Thomas should never have been confirmed after the Anita Hill scandal let alone, still be on the court especially after what we have since learned.

[BComplex]

2. Totally agree, GigiLeigh!

Thanks for posting this! It's passed time for Dems to be absolutely taking it to the supremes.

[peppertree]

3. Chicken Supremes

With plenty of garnish ($$$).

[rubbersole]

4. Garnish with Coke Can Clarence's pubes.

[peppertree]

9. Of course - I forgot refreshments

[markodochartaigh]

14. No matter what Republicans say

about their love of country and justice, they will forever be the party of a candidate for the highest court in the land who showed up to his job interview for that office, proclaimed his love of beer and suffered an emotional breakdown.

[peppertree]

28. Banana Republicans

Third world miscreants - like the kind the GOP is so given to backing - often do the very thing:

They start wailing and crying about how they "gave my life to my country" - and then hot-foot it (with their millions) to Miami or the French Riviera the minute things get tricky.

They make sure their bank accounts are taken care of - and the rest is just theater.

[Evolve Dammit]

21. "We had some big pukers." Brian's frat beach rental buds. SCOTUS is not credible.

[peppertree]

29. These people are like something out of the Roman Empire

Incest and all.

[Evolve Dammit]

19. Long Dong Silver.

[rubbersole]

23. Corrupt treason porn.

[Evolve Dammit]

33. part of Anita Hill's testimony.

[Chainfire]

5. I see no immediate solution to the Supreme Court problem. Those chickens have gone home to roost.

The next President will quite likely be seating Justice(s). If that is not reason enough to be afraid of Trump, nothing is.

[mopinko]

30. it'd b great to get a big enough house majority to impeach that motherfucker.

not that we’ll convict him in the senate, but damn. maybe embarrass him into stepping down.
or clean house at doj, and charge him w accepting bribes.

[KS Toronado]

6. Time to picket outside the Supreme Court

That's still legal isn't it?

[Kid Berwyn]

7. Degree Absolute

Start with John Roberts, who earned his Sgt. Pepper stripes in obstructing Iran-Contra investigation.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1002281926

[ancianita]

8. Yep, they've let themselves be corrupted -- not caring what pubic harm ensues, or what the optics of its delay are.

But unlike other two branches, though, Supreme Court justices are not democratically accountable to the people, and officially hold themselves immune to public pressures. Doesn't mean the public can't try, though; like you said, public pressure should be lawful and not defamatory, full of "fighting words" or fraudulent use of SWATs.

Just know there's always been a larger context to all this...
Judicial Independence is foundational and historical...

One judicial independence metric is the high court independence index in the V-Dem Dataset,


The thing is, Trump will run whether he's convicted before or after the GE because of this court.

The other thing is, either way he's gonna lose. So chill.

These four (in)justices will do what they do, explain it, and we'll be done with them until we win the general election trifecta. I could be wrong, but I'm not.
After we win for democracy we can have Democrats expand the SC to thirteen.

We got this.

[rubbersole]

12. 13 at a minimum. On January 20th after the blue tsunami.

Pick 40 year olds from New College. That would boil some magat grits.

[ancianita]

13. Works for me.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

10. It's the Subversive, Corrupt Court of the United States.

[NowsTheTime]

11. Consider all legal ideas to change the political composition of scotus.

If we can't get 60 Senators to expand the court (or change the rules), we can at least shoot for getting a Senate majority and holding it.

Remember this:

The Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch to the US Supreme Court on a 54-45 vote.

The Senate confirmed Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court on a 50-48 vote.

The Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett on a 52-48 vote.

[SWBTATTReg]

32. Since we have control of the Senate, appoint and ratify X numbers of new Supreme Court Justices.

The current Supreme Court doesn't follow the will of the people. And since when so many of tRUMP's followers, arrested, trialed, and convicted already of 1/6 charges, why isn't the leader of this same movement facing his own justice? Why the favoritism for tRUMP, if A=B, then B=A, thus a follower of tRUMP is guilty, then tRUMP is also guilty.

[brooklynite]

15. No.

Doesn't achieve anything. The average voter isn't focused on Trump's trials, much less the Court's handing of the Immunity claim.

[Evolve Dammit]

22. Advocating a free pass?

[brooklynite]

25. Advocating an effective campaign strategy

The purpose of campaign ads isn't to make the candidates existing supporters feel good. It's to convince a majority of the voters in each State to vote for the candidate. To do that, the ad has to resonate with what the undecided voter thinks is important.

[sop]

16. Maybe someone in the building will leak the Supreme Court's decision, like they did before the Dobbs case.

[SunSeeker]

17. Yes, that would make a lot more sense than picketing Jill Biden. nt

[dalton99a]

18. Kick

[orangecrush]

20. It seems there is a cabal

Operating behind the scenes to shove motherfucker down our throats.

[DallasNE]

24. Nixon Must Be Turning Over In His Grave

In United States v. Nixon, the court found no 5th Amendment protection on turning over the tapes, and neither did they find any immunity for Nixon. Both cases involve a sitting President engaged in illegal election-related activity so they are highly similar.

Jack Smith had issued a subpoena for records from a former Trump lawyer and the Supreme Court ruled that the attorney would have his 5th Amendment rights violated so they squashed the sub[oena, ending all efforts to flip the former Trump attorney. Now the Supremes are looking at whether a sitting or former President has absolute immunity from prosecution. We fought a war of independence over this very issue.

These cases will make law enforcement much more difficult going forward because of the expansion of 5th Amendment rights as evidence needed for conviction will now be out of the reach of law enforcement and prosecutors.

[onenote]

26. Which attorney did Smith unsuccessfully try to subpoena?

[4dog]

27. See excellent article/polemic by Elie Mystal on the same topic

at https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-supreme-court-must-be-stopped/

[ProudMNDemocrat]

31. The Conservative 6, not the more sensible Progressive 3.

Which is why I favor expanding the Supreme Court to 13, to equal the number of Federal Circuits.

[onetexan]

34. Add more Liberal justices - make it a court of 13 and appoint 4 more liberals to the court