The Supreme Court is Absolutely Corrupt.

[speak easy]

(The Sinister Six) are going to send it back to get a judgment on what acts of a president are private and official, review that, perhaps send it back again, and ultimately make the narrowest ruling on presidential immunity - leaving open further appeals in other cases - all with the intent to benefit defendant Trump.

[TexasDem69]

1. Yes, that's how the courts sometimes operate

That’s not corruption but the legal system in action

[dchill]

2. Nope. You're wrong. That's it and that's all...

You're wrong.

[TexasDem69]

3. Well, super persuasive argument

That’s all.

[dchill]

5. I listened to the Court today. I heard Alito.

I heard Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Corrupt.

[TexasDem69]

6. They haven't ruled yet!

So a bit early to call them corrupt. But you do you

[Tribetime]

7. Wanna make a bet on how rule they're corrupt as sin

[TexasDem69]

10. Sure

I bet they rule that Trump doesn’t have absolute immunity. Beyond that who knows.

[VeryProgressive]

26. That's Not the Issue.

Of course, they are not going to say he has absolute immunity, but that's not what makes them corrupt. They will likely remand this case back to the lower courts, thereby delaying the case so it isn't allowed to proceed before the election. That is absolutely corrupt, as it is their intent. Also, the fact that they even took the case for oral argument is, in itself, a sign that they are clearly compromised.

[Straw Man]

37. That's pretty much a gimme.

If they ruled for absolute presidential immunity, what would prevent Biden from having Trump shot or swept up and remanded to Gitmo? I mean besides his (Biden's) basic human decency.

[PufPuf23]

39. I know one result, the can gets kicked down the road without resolution when

time is the limiting factor.

We have watched this time and time again.

Gaming the legal system is normal activity.

[dchill]

8. "...a bit early to call them corrupt..."

Heh.

[PufPuf23]

38. Must have been early AM before coffee to have that conclusion or from

a professional in a failed legal system.

[returnee]

45. Thomas is clearly corrupt...

…in violation of any reasonable ethical standard, for which investigation is overdue. He also has failed to recuse in several cases he should have by the same reasonable ethical standard. Same could be said for Alito.

I believe any justice who accepted a nomination before Merrick Garland got a Senate hearing should be impeached on grounds of supporting McConnell’s violation of the Constitution re: refusing Garland a hearing on utterly specious grounds. Gorsuch in the first instance, but the same could conceivably hold for the other succeeding justices. In addition, there was a lack of investigation by the FBI in the Kavanaugh nomination (maybe the FBI is corrupt…maybe?, but I digress). And finally, Coney-Barrett should not have accepted the nomination in order to avoid supporting more of McConnell’s further corruption shoehorning her nomination following the passing RBG.

There are possible cases for perjury for justices voting to gut Roe v Wade, contrary to their testimony about the case.

Then there are the numerous rulings limiting voting rights.

No, corruption is objective, irrespective of this case.

Just my humble opinion.

[dchill]

46. And so we are clearly beyond one bad apple.

I can't say for sure that Clarence Thomas is the most corrupt, but he's the most clearly craven.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. What? You know this isn't their first case?

Yes, corrupt.

[TexasDem69]

11. What other ruling was corrupt?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

14. Here's a starting point for you...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217582096

[HUAJIAO]

23. They've been corrupt from the get-go. Not at all too early to call them corrupt.

[Galraedia]

24. The fact that they even are considering this and delaying Trump's trial because of it is corrupt

[Elessar Zappa]

42. Of course they're corrupt.

That’s been shown from earlier rulings. Don’t try and defend their bullshit on a progressive website.

[elleng]

17. Idiots,

but not all of them.

[Diraven]

13. They don't always put it off for months though

If they think it's important they can schedule arguments and rule within days.

[AdamGG]

36. Exactly. How long did it take them to issue their ruling in Bush v. Gore?

They spit out that one off, can't be used as precedent ruling immediately, so that the Florida recount couldn't possibly create the facts on the ground of declaring Al Gore the winner.

They are behaving in the completely opposite way now when it benefits the Republican candidate to slow the process down.

[walkingman]

27. They are not shameless lawyers or corrupt judges - they make no apologies....

they are pure political hacks.

[AdamGG]

35. How is convening a mob to overthrow the government an official act???

I can't think of any interpretation where convening a mob of citizens with the intent of disrupting the certification of a presidential election could be interpreted as an official act of office, can you?

It's judicial masturbation to litigate whether a president can be tried for official acts of office. NOTHING he is charged with has to do with the official duties of a president. This is the equivalent of Aileen Cannon ruling that the charges against Trump hording, hiding and refusing to return top secret documents needed to be evaluated by a "special master" to decide if it could go to trial.

It's how corruption can strangle democracy.

[EndlessWire]

41. It's true they haven't ruled yet

but their discussion was alarming. For instance: One of them, a male, was giving a hypothetical to Trump's lawyer. He was questioning what was within the parameters of an official act. His hypothetical? What if the President joined or led a (what amounted to a sit in) in a place...can't remember it all (and not going to go through two hours of that garbage) but I thought, my gawd, he's talking about the J6 insurrection crowd. He wanted a response to whether Trump's joining that, causing that, was within his job description. He just cloaked it in the hypothetical.

And, I'm like you, I can't see that as being a protected action. What was it the commentator said.? Calm down, don't worry, it only matters if Biden doesn't get elected. Yeah, it's readily apparent that our country depends on that!

[elleng]

4. See Katyal's conversation on Lawrence show.

[littlemissmartypants]

15. Do you have a link? I did a search and there are lots of videos that fit your description. ❤️

[elleng]

16. Not yet; prolly later; today, 4/25 10 p.m.

[littlemissmartypants]

18. K ❤️

[The Wizard]

12. Until This Court is

dedicated to "Equal Justice Under Law" it will be heretofore called the Mediocre Court.

[Jack-o-Lantern]

19. Not corrupt??

With the exception of three, this court is worse than corrupt, it’s a gang of black robed MAGAts, a clown show dedicated to serving their orange pig master who installed them.

[Blue Owl]

20. The SCOTUS is making a psychopath the new gold standard

A proven liar, con artist, sexual predator, corrupt businessman, narcissistic egomaniac, racist piece of shit is setting the standard “for the ages”…. Fuck these robed idiots.

[Galraedia]

25. A third of them were also appointed by that lying con artist who lost the popular vote TWICE

[onetexan]

21. If they rule for the Con we w need to take to the streets

& demand their resignation.

[lindysalsagal]

22. Exactly what Rachel et al on MSNBC are saying tonight: Lawyers, politicos, scotus experts.

They invented lots of bogus arguments just to fill the time and make it appear they were going to be serious, but really, they just want to throw it all into the tall weeds until after the election.

[speak easy]

40. Yep.

[budkin]

28. We all knew this as soon as they took the case

What an absolute shitshow.

[Aussie105]

29. My take is quite simple.

Scotus is populated with individuals who on the whole feel that their future would be more secure under a Trump presidency, and want to simply let him off the insurrection hook without making it too obvious that they are setting things up for Tump's re-election.

When you elevate some people to a high position and pay them lots, they can take it seriously and work hard to earn their position through good performance on the job.
Others just become complacent, self serving and entitled.

Scotus isn't having a problem with its decision.
They are however, having problems in wording it so it seems rational and acceptable to others.

[Jedi Guy]

44. How would a second Trump term make their futures "more secure"?

They're appointed for life so they can stay on the bench until they keel over or decide to retire. The only mechanism to kick them out requires 67 votes in the Senate. It's highly unlikely there'll be 67 Democratic senators anytime soon and even less likely any Republican senators will cross party lines and vote to convict in an impeachment.

Regardless of how they word this or any decision, their appointments are secure. They're not going anywhere and they know it.

[Skittles]

30. when they literally CHOSE Dubya to be prez, all bets were off

they're right-wing hacks, there is no JUSTICE there

[Goldenlight]

31. Banana Republic

My concern is not what the short term gain of the. SCOTUS affirming that he can be prosecuted for insurrection but what is there long term agenda is of corruption

[Hekate]

32. Kagen, Jackson, & Sotomayor are not corrupt; they're amazing. Barrett's an enigma so far

She asked the right probing questions today regarding women’s medical care, which tells me that all her childbearing taught her more than those 5 medievalist men will ever know. Fingers crossed that she matures into a swing voter.

The corruption of the High Court belongs to the 5 men on the bench, Opus Dei theocrats rotted through with arrogance.

[dalton99a]

33. The Supreme Whorehouse doesn't disappoint

[vapor2]

34. Alito and Thomas want to retire under a republican president period

[RandiFan1290]

43. December 12, 2000 nt

[Kid Berwyn]

47. SCOTUS is aiding and abetting Trump and his treason.

The Sinister Six are co-conspirators.