gounion wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2023 2:44 pm
Not attacking them at all. You should read my first post. They may let the lower court rule. I actually think they should overturn the Colorado decision. But he shouldn’t have immunity, and I don’t think there’s a court in the land that would give it to him.
They can let the DC Circuit rule against Trump on immunity, and then they can just let the decision stand, and not touch it.
The Colorado case shows how detailed and difficult the case is.
You have 7 judges, all legal scholars, all democrats and they rule 4 to 3.
Which us why we should just defer to and trust thr courts.
Because anyone else including talking heads on MSNBC or Fox News will just be giving their personal opinion or what their targeted audience wants to hear.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2023 3:01 pm
The Colorado case shows how detailed and difficult the case is.
You have 7 judges, all legal scholars, all democrats and they rule 4 to 3.
Which us why we should just defer to and trust thr courts.
Because anyone else including talking heads on MSNBC or Fox News will just be giving their personal opinion or what their targeted audience wants to hear.
And you’re the targeted audience that wants to do all you can to keep Trump on the ballot.
"Recently, the Supreme Court declined Smith’s request to expedite resolving the question of whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in the federal election interference case. On the one hand, we can view the court’s decision as a win for Trump. The court’s unwillingness to jump into the fray and rule on this question before the D.C. Circuit hears and rules on the question could delay the case’s resolution. The longer this case drags on, the better it is for Trump," wrote Levinson.
However, she continued, "on the other hand, the Supreme Court’s decision to wait for the D.C. Circuit to rule might actually be bad news for Trump. If, as many expect, the D.C. Circuit concludes that Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution, then Trump will appeal to the high court. But the court doesn’t have to take the case. By declining to hear the case, the D.C. Circuit court’s decision would stand. The Supreme Court also could simply affirm the D.C. Circuit’s ruling without a full briefing and oral arguments. The court’s decision not to intervene now could actually indicate there’s really no reason for their involvement because this is not a close call."
The simple matter, Levinson wrote, is that the issue of presidential immunity is "not a tough one." The court may never have directly decided this question, but several cases, from Nixon v. United States to Clinton v. Jones, have found the president cannot be immune from civil action and enforcement — and the logic easily extends to criminal cases involving conduct not directly related to the president's official duties.
"Judicially created doctrines like presidential immunity serve a purpose," wrote Levinson Wednesday. "Presidents do not have normal jobs, and they are entitled to some level of protection. We want presidents to feel free to make decisions for the public good. But we also want them to know that if they break criminal laws, they will pay for it. Because these presidents are, presumably, still presiding over a nation that values the rule of law. The judges should follow their own doctrines, instead of perverting them for Trump’s gain."
You are dealing from a position of emotion. You don't know anymore about the legal ramifications than I know.
Which is why I said while I don't believe Trump deserves immunity and commented on the future precedent. I have deferred to the legal scholars who sit on scotus to make the correct legal decision.
While if the court doesn't rule the way you want you will declare them all traitors
Glennfs wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2023 5:29 pm
You are dealing from a position of emotion. You don't know anymore about the legal ramifications than I know.
Which is why I said while I don't believe Trump deserves immunity and commented on the future precedent. I have deferred to the legal scholars who sit on scotus to make the correct legal decision.
While if the court doesn't rule the way you want you will declare them all traitors
Nope. But if they rule against Trump on the ballot question, you WILL declare them all traitors.
Here's the cases as I see them. I've evolved in the ballot case. I think they should knock down the removals. It's too messy, and the GOP would immediately remove all democrats whereever they had power. After all, according to you guys, it's Biden that's the traitor to our nation, right?
And there's no way any court will provide Trump with blanket immunity for things he did that aren't part of the Presidential job. There is precedent for this. Remember that other Republican crook, Richard Nixon?
Appearing on MSNBC, former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam stated she didn't see the Supreme Court interested in stepping into the fight between Donald Trump and his lawyers with special counsel Jack Smith over whether the former president has wide-ranging immunity from being charged with crimes.
Reacting to a filing made by Smith on Saturday outlining the types of crimes a blanket immunity ruling could cover, Lam told MSNBC host Paola Ramos that she thinks the nation's highest court will let the D.C. Court of Appeals have the final word.
"What I think the Supreme Court may be thinking is, we are going to let the appellate court consider the issue first, and they've set a very expedited briefing and argument schedule for this," she began. "They're going to hear this argument in mid-January. So, if the Supreme Court or the majority of the Supreme Court fundamentally agrees with whatever the D.C. Circuit says, they may just decide not to take the case up in the Supreme Court, and just let the District of Columbia Appeals Court opinion stand."
"That way the Supreme Court will not have to actually render the ultimate decision on this case; they can just decline to take the case up and then they can leave for another day, deciding this particular issue as to the scope of presidential immunity," she continued. "But I do think that Jack Smith has the better argument because he's raised a number of potential scenarios that would be very problematic if a president could do anything he wanted with respect to trying to stay in office and could not be prosecuted for those things."
"I think that would be a very problematic position for the Supreme Court or even the D.C. Circuit to agree with," she added.
gounion wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 10:00 am
Nope. But if they rule against Trump on the ballot question, you WILL declare them all traitors.
Here's the cases as I see them. I've evolved in the ballot case. I think they should knock down the removals. It's too messy, and the GOP would immediately remove all democrats whereever they had power. After all, according to you guys, it's Biden that's the traitor to our nation, right?
And there's no way any court will provide Trump with blanket immunity for things he did that aren't part of the Presidential job. There is precedent for this. Remember that other Republican crook, Richard Nixon?
There you go again proving my point. It is a very complicated and complex issue. One where the 7 democrats ( probably liberal) on the Colorado SC were evenly split. ( technically 4-3)
When 7 democrats who are legal scholars and all hate Trump are 4-3 it is time to sit back and let the courts decide.
Then support however the courts rule.
Any person such as yourself who believes their personal opinion on this matter is correct, is simply dealing from an emotional mindset.
Now here is an answer that you won't have the balls to answer. ( as usual)
Are you willing to state right here and now that you will support and defend any descion made by our scotus regarding Trump and any case that makes it to scotus
Yes or No
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 9:15 am
There you go again proving my point. It is a very complicated and complex issue. One where the 7 democrats ( probably liberal) on the Colorado SC were evenly split. ( technically 4-3)
When 7 democrats who are legal scholars and all hate Trump are 4-3 it is time to sit back and let the courts decide.
Then support however the courts rule.
Any person such as yourself who believes their personal opinion on this matter is correct, is simply dealing from an emotional mindset.
But of course Glenn believes his personal opinion is correct, and is not dealing with it from an emotional mindset.
Now here is an answer that you won't have the balls to answer. ( as usual)
Are you willing to state right here and now that you will support and defend any descion made by our scotus regarding Trump and any case that makes it to scotus
Yes or No
My answer is yes 100pct
So if the Supreme Court rules that Trump is immune from anything he did, you will cheer that decision? Really?
No, the ONLY way a court can rule on his immunity is that he isn't immune from criminal conspiracy to overthrow an election he lost fair and square. I'm not surprised you would be fine with such a decision. I don't think they'll rule that way, they don't want the Trump stink on them, but I'm surprised you'll support them ruling that way.
As for the ballot case, I'm fine with however they rule.
gounion wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 9:22 am
But of course Glenn believes his personal opinion is correct, and is not dealing with it from an emotional mindset.
So if the Supreme Court rules that Trump is immune from anything he did, you will cheer that decision? Really?
No, the ONLY way a court can rule on his immunity is that he isn't immune from criminal conspiracy to overthrow an election he lost fair and square. I'm not surprised you would be fine with such a decision. I don't think they'll rule that way, they don't want the Trump stink on them, but I'm surprised you'll support them ruling that way.
As for the ballot case, I'm fine with however they rule.
Got it you will only support the court descions which agree with your current emotional belief.
gounion wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 12:03 pm
So you think it’s fine if Trump is found to be immune for trying to overturn an election?
got it.
I think that the subject is so complicated and complex that has ramifications way beyond Trump that people like you and me should defer to the legal scholars who sit on SCOTUS and lesser federal benches.
Especially after Colorado ruled 4 to 3.
Sidebar I am speaking of all the federal related charges and cases surrounding Trump. Not just immunity.
gounion wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2023 2:44 pm
Not attacking them at all. You should read my first post. They may let the lower court rule. I actually think they should overturn the Colorado decision. But he shouldn’t have immunity, and I don’t think there’s a court in the land that would give it to him.
They can let the DC Circuit rule against Trump on immunity, and then they can just let the decision stand, and not touch it.
I called it from the beginnig.
But if the Supremes take it up and rules that Trump is immune from trying to overthrow an election, that would be a bad decision that would destroy our nation. After all, Biden can just do the same thing next year and get away with it.
gounion wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 12:10 pm
I called it from the beginnig.
But if the Supremes take it up and rules that Trump is immune from trying to overthrow an election, that would be a bad decision that would destroy our nation. After all, Biden can just do the same thing next year and get away with it.
But you’re too big a Trump supporter to admit it.
Let's review
I said it is a complex case and we should support the decision of the court.
You said you will only support the decision of the court if it is what you currently believe.
gounion wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 12:14 pm
So you say the immunity question is complex?
Really? You idiot.
Everything surrounding Trump is complex because it will set a precedent going far into the future.
Which is why in this case we should defer to and trust our courts to do what they determine is best for our country both now and in the future.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 12:16 pm
Everything surrounding Trump is complex because it will set a precedent going far into the future.
Which is why in this case we should defer to and trust our courts to do what they determine is best for our country both now and in the future.
I don’t trust Thomas or Alito. They are on the take.
But the immunity case is NOT complex. It’s cut and dried, open and shut. NO ONE is above the law, even you Cheeto Dear Leader. He must be held responsible for his crimes. If he is given blanket immunity even for things he did when he was not President, both before and after his term, it will destroy the future of the Presidency.
gounion wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 12:21 pm
I don’t trust Thomas or Alito. They are on the take.
But the immunity case is NOT complex. It’s cut and dried, open and shut. NO ONE is above the law, even you Cheeto Dear Leader. He must be held responsible for his crimes. If he is given blanket immunity even for things he did when he was not President, both before and after his term, it will destroy the future of the Presidency.
Fact is we can easily predict how Alito Thomas and Jackson will rule on every case. Which should not be.
The other 6 with less accuracy.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 12:26 pm
Fact is we can easily predict how Alito Thomas and Jackson will rule on every case. Which should not be.
The other 6 with less accuracy.
Yet you tell me that Alito and Thomas rule based on the Constitution, which is not true.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 7:31 am
What was that you were saying a day or so ago about opinions
Facts, Glenn, facts. That's what you should base opinions on.
I mean, when Thomas joined Renquist and Scalia in voting no in Lawrence v Texas, where they wanted to continue making gay sex illegal, would you say they were doing so from a Constitutional view? Or their own prejudices?
gounion wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 7:45 am
Facts, Glenn, facts. That's what you should base opinions on.
I mean, when Thomas joined Renquist and Scalia in voting no in Lawrence v Texas, where they wanted to continue making gay sex illegal, would you say they were doing so from a Constitutional view? Or their own prejudices?
So liberals like Justice Jackson who you agree with rule according to the constitution
But conservatives who you don't agree don't rule according to the constitution
Got it
Glennfs wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 7:49 am
So liberals like Justice Jackson who you agree with rule according to the constitution
But conservatives who you don't agree don't rule according to the constitution
Got it
I knew you'd run from the question.
We don't know how Jackson will rule, she's only got a few votes under her belt. But then, you hate her and lie about her right off the bat, don't you?
