I'm going to say this here and hope someone will pick it up and present it to better informed citizens than I.

[Jit423]

Why the hell can't or won't the SCOTUS SUSPEND THEIR RULING ON IMMUNITY?!!!!
Oh sure, there is no Constitutional provision or precedent for doing so BUT there is no precedent for Trump doing what he has been allowed to do so far. And we all know that precedent ain't what it used to be because Roe v Wade cancel proved that. Trump has made us essentially a lawless nation with total lack of respect for any laws, courts, and citizenship.

So let it be done.! So let it be written. SUSPEND and allow us citizens to RESIST!!

[valleyrogue]

1. I don't know why somebody doesn't bring a case to them so they can overturn it or reconsider the case.

I have been thinking the same thing.

Something HAS to be done about him. If it isn't done the legal way, somebody else is going to do the job.

I don't want to go there. The 1960s were bad enough.

[ReRe]

9. That damn SC Immunity shite has been on my mind all night.

Thanks to them, he was provided the impetus to do what he has done. Were all six of them so damn sure he wouldn't do what he has done? What Trump is doing is not Constitutional! There should be a way to take the immunity question BACK to them. But, really, could the damage that has been done be rolled back now? Could Humpty-Dumpty be put back together again?

Politics has poisoned the judgement of the Supreme Court of this land. Shame on those "guilty" Justices who have totally lost their minds and brought our country to near collapse.

[Timewas]

2. Even if

What can be done even if that were to happen.

The U.S. Supreme Court, while holding immense power in interpreting the Constitution and law, lacks direct enforcement mechanisms of its own. It relies on the executive branch, particularly the President, to carry out and enforce its rulings.

[Ms. Toad]

3. It doesn't work that way.

The Supreme Court only acts on cases in front of it. It doesn't just opine on matters out of the blue.

In this case, since the immunity was granted for criminal prosecution of the president, which can't happen until a president is out of office, that means more than 3 years from now - if charges are brought against Trump once he is out of office. Unless, of course, you believe criminal charges should be brought against another former president.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

4. Someone watched The Ten Commandments

over the weekend.

[usonian]

6. There's an 11th commandment (sorta)

Just like there are 11 standing orders for military sentries (Navy, Marines and Coast Guard have 11), there's a 12th.

DON'T GET CAUGHT

That is all.

[usonian]

5. I suspect that his sociopathic and vindictive actions will have their own consequences,

mainly with foreign powers, who are no fools like he is.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20215296

1. A devastating cyber hack, thanks to our cyber-security being gutted and run by people concerned over DEI and little else.

2. A physical attack is made on the US, given it’s new clowncar security by cronies with no expertise. (and again, far more concerned about DEI than physical security)

3. Someone with information (as in Trump's escapades with Epstein) blows up the charade.

Business as usual is gone.

[Silent Type]

7. Don't think suspending "immunity rule" accomplishes much unless criminal charges are imposed on trump.

The courts and Congress have the power to stop most of trump’s actions, if they find the guts to enforce it.

[Cheezoholic]

8. At it's core the "immunity ruling" really didn't give the President "extra" power, it in fact gave the SCOTUS more power

That's because once a president is out of power (not a whole lot you can get him/her on when in office anyway except impeaching) if anyone wants to go after him/her for anything legally they still can. If/when such a case get's to the SCOTUS, THEY will have the final word on whether whatever event that is being argued falls under the purview of a "Presidential Duty/Action". The final decision of what is and is not something done as a duty by the President is theirs and theirs alone. THEY thereby granted THEMSELVES actual extra interpretive powers over the Executive's Duties making themselves truly a Court of Kings.

[MayReasonRule]

10. Well Said Y'all!

[elocs]

11. If SCOTUS could simply sit on the bench & make decisions, they would be rulers, not judges.

They need a case in order to make a ruling.