I wonder how much a stolen SC seat is worth. The arguments used in front of the lower courts were abysmal to say the least.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Finally: Trump's legal team asks Supreme Court to prevent Mazars giving his tax returns to NY prosecutors
- Thread starter Sho_Nuff82
- Start date
I wonder how much a stolen SC seat is worth. The arguments used in front of the lower courts were abysmal to say the least.
If there is any true justice left in the country that would be correct.
I have almost zero hope left for America....
....but I actually fully believe the SC either:
- won't take this case
- will side with the lower courts
....but I actually fully believe the SC either:
- won't take this case
- will side with the lower courts
As we stated in the other thread, the Supreme Court would be crazy to touch this, because whichever way they rule is going to have crazy ramifications for the future.
Wonder how expedited their decision will be in this case?
Wonder how expedited their decision will be in this case?
I'm almost expecting them to say that only Congress can constitutionally impeach/hold the president accountable so they overturn the lower court rulings.
Maybe he secretly doesn't like Trump that much because he doesn't drink beer. Kavannaugh likes beer. Do you like beer?
I rather take this than a straight up L. But the ruling will obviously also affect the immunity of evil ,communist, socialist Democratic presidents in the near future.
Rule wisely
The Supreme Court will announce whether they're even hearing the case (unlikely?) in the next month. If they *do* decide to rule, the verdict should be done around June.
Not sure if this subpoena means that the documents would be released to the public, though?
Not sure if this subpoena means that the documents would be released to the public, though?
Right, the subpoena is so NY state prosecutors can get the docs. They wouldn't become public unless they're included as, like, exhibits in an indictment/trial. Well, unless they're leaked, but NY state fighting to get sensitive/embarrassing documents on the president and then leaking them without formally accusing anyone of wrongdoing sounds like a good way to give SCOTUS a pretext to decide that state prosecutors shouldn't be able to subpoena the president's info after all
Why do you think Roberts will side against Trump? I see a lot of people saying that, but I don't understand it.
Roberts was one of the votes in favor of letting ACA (Obamacare) stand. People have interpreted that Roberts cares more about SCOTUS's legacy as an independent institution based in law than he cares about personal political wins.
edit:
I like this.
Last edited:
There's almost 0 chance that's the result. There's literally no legal basis for what's being argued.
What does he have to fear unless they have blackmail on him. They can't kick him out.
Roberts has overturned precedence in cases the SC has taken up than not. He's all talk, or dems/independents just like to assume the best which, as we all know by now, is always the right way to go about things and nothing bad will ever happen by assuming the best in people.
It'll be interesting though.
Can you imagine a Supreme Court judge voting in favor of criminal immunity for a sitting president?
Just saying that sounds disturbing.
And that's exactly why they likely won't take it, nevermind rule in his favor.
Even if we assume they're partisan hacks you still arrive at that same conclusion since the rule would apply to all presidents.
This is the REAL TEST for our democracy and the future of the Republic. If SCoTUS actually takes this up and votes along party lines, based on politics and not precedence, then all semblance of checks and balances are gone and all is lost. This is not impossible. The same thing happened in Poland in 2015 with their judicial system and their current constitutional crisis. This is the G.O.P's real end game. Trump is stacking the courts with conservative loyalists. He appointed more judges in his first 200 days than Obama, Bush, or Clinton. If they control the judiciary and become partisan things will become really scary.
He justified it under the Congressional tax power, rather than the Commerce clause. It had nothing to do with "rights" either way.
I doubt the SC will take it up, and if they do I really doubt Roberts will vote for the abolition of the rule of law.
I know what it's from. I say again: huh? The court does not say it isn't precedent. The sentence says the decision applies to the "present circumstances," which is, you know, duh. It doesn't suggest anywhere the ruling isn't precedent and it hasn't prevented it being used as precedent.
Paying someone off probably or they are afraid of being sued.
It's amazing how Trump has never been caught for the mountains of likely fraud and money laundering he has been up to. A number of agencies should have been on his case long before his presidency.