General Discussion

Sparkly

(24,885 posts)

55. I wouldn't put anything past them.

Reply to limbicnuminousity (Reply #54)

Wed Feb 28, 2024, 11:45 PM

Feb 2024

There are only three USSC justices I trust at ALL. The other six are corrupt and/or extremist rightwing zealots.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

mzmolly

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So, does presidential immunity mean that a SCOTUS justice can be executed, [View all] mzmolly Feb 2024 OP

Now it gets interesting. Does a president have to personally kill or can he involve others? unblock Feb 2024 #1

According to trump, the Pres can order SEAL Team 6 in... Wounded Bear Feb 2024 #3

Yep. Biden should get on it! mzmolly Feb 2024 #8

As long as there are not 67 senators Beausoleil Feb 2024 #30

As I understood the argument by TSF's attorney's mzmolly Feb 2024 #5

This is crazy.... what does TSF mean? hydrolastic Feb 2024 #67

Tsf, the sick f*ck UniqueUserName Feb 2024 #69

That's the rightwing suprme court plan, create confusion and chaos which will take years... Think. Again. Feb 2024 #7

Like Bush/Gore, they'll say immunity only for HIM n/t Just_Vote_Dem Feb 2024 #2

Ah yes. The "not to be used as a precedent" precedent unblock Feb 2024 #10

Ugh. mzmolly Feb 2024 #11

It won't happen but the fantasy is nice chicoescuela Feb 2024 #4

Well Biden wouldn't entertain such a thing. mzmolly Feb 2024 #6

You're right, only tfg would attempt it chicoescuela Feb 2024 #9

Yes. SarahD Feb 2024 #12

Recommended. H2O Man Feb 2024 #13

I don't understand why... scipan Feb 2024 #16

The verdict makes no difference AZSkiffyGeek Feb 2024 #18

Legally yes. But polls have shown it makes a difference in who votes for him. Nt scipan Feb 2024 #26

Provided a criminal conviction happens prior to election mzmolly Feb 2024 #52

Exactly. Let's hope that still happens. scipan Feb 2024 #59

Good question. H2O Man Feb 2024 #37

Yes, that's the same as I've heard. However scipan Feb 2024 #58

DOJ doesn't own the court docket or trial dates. The Courts do. stumpysbear Feb 2024 #56

They are aware. Further, they have taken timing into account. Nt scipan Feb 2024 #57

I hope you're right mzmolly Feb 2024 #22

Im going to hold you cilla4progress Feb 2024 #53

Unless Garland decides it's ungentlemanly to have the case so close to the election. Scrivener7 Feb 2024 #68

Why are folks presuming that the grant of cert means Trump will win his appeal? onenote Feb 2024 #14

Well it could just be for delay purposes scipan Feb 2024 #17

If they wanted to really delay it they could've refused to expedite . onenote Feb 2024 #20

Correct but maybe they do indeed worry about what people think scipan Feb 2024 #23

Why would they take the case? I'll let Jack Smith's words explain why: onenote Feb 2024 #25

Don't try to use logic TexasDem69 Feb 2024 #28

I'm used to it. onenote Feb 2024 #32

Damn you got me. scipan Feb 2024 #33

Thank you mzmolly Feb 2024 #40

Okay what is the unanswered question? scipan Feb 2024 #42

Neal Katyal mzmolly Feb 2024 #45

Neal, whose record before the Court last term was 3 wins, and 2 losses. onenote Feb 2024 #46

Neal is not alone mzmolly Feb 2024 #51

But that didn't mean they had to re-consider it. Sparkly Feb 2024 #61

A denial of cert does not "definitively resolve" the issue. onenote Feb 2024 #65

I don't think ANYBODY is assuming that bluestarone Feb 2024 #21

Seventeen days from Trump's application. onenote Feb 2024 #27

Can you please post an example timeline of how everything could be realistically completed prior to the election? ecstatic Feb 2024 #31

First tell me how long you think the trial will take. onenote Feb 2024 #47

Maybe 6 weeks depending on the witness count and how long the judge takes to ecstatic Feb 2024 #49

Well, even at 17 days, that's 17 days SLOWER than it should take (one day max for tis bullshit decision) bluestarone Feb 2024 #34

So Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are secretly in league with the conservatives helping Trump? onenote Feb 2024 #38

It seems possible H2O Man Feb 2024 #48

They haven't even decided the issue! TexasDem69 Feb 2024 #39

Only one? LiberalFighter Feb 2024 #15

One, give or take a handful. mzmolly Feb 2024 #19

Participants of an insurrection? Especially the leader. And those in the judicial supporting it? LiberalFighter Feb 2024 #41

I really want one of the liberal justices to ask Trump's lawyers this: hvn_nbr_2 Feb 2024 #24

I'd like to see that mzmolly Feb 2024 #35

I would charge them with participating in an insurrection. LiberalFighter Feb 2024 #43

I think I heard it's narrowly tailored to just Trump so Joe couldn't have him executed right afterward? Ligyron Feb 2024 #50

Impeachment, followed by a trial. Ms. Toad Feb 2024 #63

Decision will be timed for after Biden is out MOMFUDSKI Feb 2024 #29

Presuming Trump mzmolly Feb 2024 #36

Personally, I think the attorneys that come up with these Trump defenses need to lose their license. LiberalFighter Feb 2024 #44

The SC can't grant presidential immunity. limbicnuminousity Feb 2024 #54

I wouldn't put anything past them. Sparkly Feb 2024 #55

Would a court find that to be an "official act" by the President? onenote Feb 2024 #60

If insurrection is, mzmolly Feb 2024 #66

And if he does it Mz Pip Feb 2024 #62

This is why Impeachement is not a remedy for an immune President ThoughtCriminal Feb 2024 #64

If they stop representing the wealthy and our corporate state, of course it does. It's one way to keep them in line. jalan48 Feb 2024 #70

I'll suspect the Republican judges are partisan hacks without integrity struggle4progress Feb 2024 #71