I remember many experts in the media and folks here assuring us Supreme Court won't give him

[Eliot Rosewater]

Immunity.

Especially chief Justice Roberts won't.

Hopefully we've learned our lesson, well those of you who needed to anyway.

[flying_wahini]

1. It's not over yet. I wouldn't assume that at all.

[JohnSJ]

3. If Trump wins, it's over. If we win, it's a flip of a coin with this

SC.

[Magoo48]

13. When we win, fast track whatever needs be done to fix the SC.

[oldmanlynn]

18. Agreed. I hope we win the House and Senate

Agreed. I hope we win the House and Senate So we can fix many things not assured by our constitution. Things that assume we have righteous people serving in the government.

[Scrivener7]

6. We've lost Roe, if tsf is elected he'll have immunity,

Last edited Mon Sep 16, 2024, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

none of the January 6 planners will be in jail when we vote in November, and Project 2025 is a distinct possibility.

What constitutes "over" for you?

[kentuck]

2. They will get one more chance to clear up that disastrous ruling.

No doubt, Trump will appeal to the Supreme Court whatever verdict finds him guilty.

If they fail to fix their mistake, the Court should be expanded to correct it. What other option would we have?

[ShazzieB]

15. The Court needs to be expanded as soon as there is a way to make it happen.

No need to wait till they do something even worse.

[oldmanlynn]

20. Remove the filibuster and pass the laws to protect our democracy nfm

[ShazzieB]

25. Yyes, that is exactly what needs to happen.

[LizBeth]

4. 2016 we were constantly told he would not pack SC and we would not lose RoevsWade.

[Scrivener7]

5. Oh, yeah. So many self-appointed experts

who spent so much time telling the rest of us how dumb we were, and how so much was going on behind the scenes that would make so many issues turn out hunky-dory.

All that has gone very quiet these days.

[republianmushroom]

7. Some of the finest Justices money can buy,

to bad it is not tax payers money buying them.

[Cosmocat]

8. Not me

nm

[onecaliberal]

9. I got hides and was spoken down to many a time.

At least I would have admitted being wrong. Sadly I was spot on too.

[Eliot Rosewater]

14. I remember being screamed at for not understanding

"Traitor" when referring to Donald Trump, yes right here that happened.

It won't do any good now but of course everything the traitor does the Supreme Court will see as official and of course anything any Democrat does will be unofficial and not protected of course.

[onecaliberal]

29. Is Garland a democratic public figure.

He’s not elected.

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. Remind me what we are talking about in relation relation to your comment here

And the Supreme Court decision?

[surfered]

10. Another reason to support Harris/Walz. We can't let Trump appoint anymore Supreme Court Justices

[DFW]

11. I'm no media expert, but this was my take on the subject:

[Nasruddin]

12. Supreme Court is a bad institution

It's hard to believe that powerful and ambitious men (I mean humans), placed in a position
of immense power, with a lifetime term, with no rules for behavior and no recourse except an
ineffective impeachment process, might behave in a toxic manner.

How could you shatter our Rawlsian dream, our Platonic ideals, of wise virtuous philosophers
adjudicating our disputes?

The Supreme Court has never solved problems. It only seems to create more of them.
This is true whether it finds in "our" favor or the side we oppose. Unless it's solving an interstate
tax problem or a dispute about ambassadors, it's meddling in places that require democratic action
not authoritarian dictation.

It was a bad idea at the start (as John Marshall ably showed) & it should be replaced.
Or maybe discarded altogether.

[Orrex]

16. I was scolded many times by someone with unnamed sources

[Ms. Toad]

17. I don't recall anyone I would consider knowledgeable as to the law

assuring anyone that the Supreme Court wouldn't give him immunity. That they wouldn't give him complete immunity - yes (and they didn't). But anyone familiar with the law expected them to split the baby, which they did.

Part of the problem is how nuanced the term immunity is, and how many different scenarios there are. People who were saying he would never be given immunity were generally lumping all variations into one thing - and declaring that impossible. The reality - that those of us who have spent time with the concept of immunity recognized - was that it isn't an all-or-nothing game.

So it may have felt as if we were saying he will get nothing - when we were saying he won't get complete immunity.

[Eliot Rosewater]

24. They didn't split the baby other than when there's a Democratic president

Surely we understand that I hope.

[Ms. Toad]

32. The rules applies to ALL presidents, regardless of party. n/t

[malaise]

19. I was one of them

And he does not have full immunity

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. Unfortunately Donald Trump does as long as this Supreme Court is in

Power and any and all Democratic presidents do not, do you agree with that?

Any action he takes and declares it official that is then challenged will end up in the Supreme Court, therefore we know what will happen don't we.

You are a valued member of this community and I almost always agree with you and I want you to be right and I want to be wrong, but unless there are incidents that could not be appealed to the Supreme Court, then of course they are going to justify any fucking thing he does.

[Roy Rolling]

21. What's the point?

Memory test?
“I remember” essays rarely share useful information. Imploring people to cry in their beer is the opposite of a joyful future. We need to let go of the past.

The lesson is: to be a Democrat you must take organized government with a grain of salt always. Anybody whose faith is in the people on the SCOTUS already has crossed the line. Love your neighbor, but audit your government agencies and political appointees.

We are a nation of laws, cult hero-worshippers are the problem.

[Kaleva]

22. What we all thought had no impact on the outcome

So there was no lesson to learn .

I don't know enough about the legal system to have have been able to form an educated opinion so I didn't express any on the subject

[ShazzieB]

23. I'm not aure what you're looking for here.

I was one of those who didn't expect them to give him immunity, because I was silly enough to think they'd care how they're regarded by other members of the legal profession.

I read a ton of opinions from legal scholars talking about how ludicrous the idea of presidential immunity was, and it seemed obvious that they would look like idiots if they gave him immunity. I thought they wouldn't want that, but surprise, surprise, they didn't care.

When they took so long to make a ruling, I started to smell a rat, and I wasn't completely shocked by the time the decision was announced. But in the beginning, I didn't think it was going to turn out that way.

So yeah, I predicted what I thought was going to happen, based on the information that was available to me at the time and an incorrect assumption that the Sinister Six would care about the opinions of other legal experts, and I got it wrong. Oh well.

For the record, I think SCOTUS threw the entire U.S. legal commmunity a curve ball when they made that ruling, and they knew they were doing it. Lots of people were taken by surprise, including many who are far more knowledgeable about the legal issues involved than I am. I am not ashamed of being one of the many.

[jalan48]

26. DU used to have a Holiday Inn attorney(s) that assured us that the courts would hold. So much for that.

[gab13by13]

28. I do not see the problem for me to admit

that I thought the court would not give TSF immunity. That Supreme Court decision to me was off the wall, unbelievable.

When the court was deciding I had no ill feelings toward people who believed TSF would get immunity, I underestimated how evil the court is, I underestimated how evil John Roberts is, Roberts is no different than Clarence Thomas or Sam Alito.

I learned my lesson if that makes people who predicted the outcome feel better.

What do we do now? We win control of government, abolish the filibuster to enable us to add 4 more justices. I have always advocated for adding justices.

I also agree that the way the immunity came down, this court can give Magat presidents immunity and withhold it from Democratic presidents.

[UTUSN]

31. K&R