Breaking News: Supreme Court accepts Jan. 6 case that could affect Jack Smith's Trump Prosecution

[bendog]

Bullshit.

Theres so many problems with this ideology, I don’t even know where to begin.

For starters, the founders were a diverse group who disagreed. Whose intent the judge listens to depends largely on who the judge agrees with. Picking and choosing isn’t originalism.

Second, we can’t possibly determine what the intent was on issues the founders had absolutely no knowledge of. They just make it up.

ANd the debates were NOT recorded. Intentionally. What we have is a series of letters, or op-eds if you will, explaining the views of Federalists and Jeffersonian Democrats

 

[rampart]

Update

This statute that is so vague that it can be used by political prosecutors to persecute their opponents is not constitutional in the United Stares. The Justices should rule the statute void and quash the indictments.

no one is prosecuting their political opponents. they are common criminals.

Text of the law?
Like slave ownership was for centuries?

wait, weatherman, are you talking about laws allowing slavery or the laws prohibiting the practice?

 

[Rawley]

Story just broke.

Supreme Court accepts Jan. 6 case that could affect or delay Trump trial

The challenge involves a law used to charge hundreds in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, and also levied against former president Donald Trump.

webcache.googleusercontent.com

Could have huge implications.

 

[StoneCold]

It’s a farce. Originalism is a joke where judges pretend like they can read the minds of people who have been dead for 200 years.

Here’s a hint. They don’t give a shit about original intent. They do whatever they want and pretend it was the original intent.

The text of the law doesn’t matter, nothing matters.

The money from their "benefactors" matters!
They will do as they are told.

 

[Doc7505]

It’s very convenient that they and only they can tell us what the founders were thinking because obviously the founders can’t tell us.

So who cares what the law says, we are just going to tell people that they didn’t intend to write it that way.

The law says it’s illegal to obstruct an official proceeding. Seems pretty straight forward. But I guess the law doesn’t actually mean what it says, because the justices don’t like it.

The constitution also plainly includes the word BRIBERY, something that our esteemed 46th president is trying very hard to avoid being involved in with his son and brother James.

 

[Marener]

Again, intent and debates are recorded. It isnt my fault you dont know that.

Well, let me know when they debated whether public school teachers should be able to pray on the 50 yard line before a football game.

 

[WEATHER53]

When SC knocks all this down, the libs will use the Mueller report repeat and say they found guilt but did not declare guilt

 

[rampart]

Why not wait until after the presidential election?

"the people have a right to know if their president is a crook."
r m nixon

yea right. wait til after the election when he can pardon himself and reboot his criminal enterprise? best avoid that incredible precedent with a "speedy trial" that should have happened 2022 at the latest.

 

[rampart]

When SC knocks all this down, the libs will use the Mueller report repeat and say they found guilt but did not declare guilt

no, we understand that this court is corrupt and only the optimists at du expect the conviction to keep.

 

[TNHarley]

Well, let me know when they debated whether public school teachers should be able to pray on the 50 yard line before a football game.

Good lord

 

[Mac1958]

Trump appointed Constitution originalists to the court. They will do the right sacred thing and shut Jack Smith's out of control lawfare down.

What would you think of them if they rule otherwise?

 

[Marener]

Good lord

BuT dER DeeBATZ wUR reCOded.

Originalism is intellectually bankrupt. It’s a farce and everyone knows it. Nothing more than the judiciary taking power they were never intended to have.

 

[mudwhistle]

Story just broke.

Supreme Court accepts Jan. 6 case that could affect or delay Trump trial

The challenge involves a law used to charge hundreds in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, and also levied against former president Donald Trump.

webcache.googleusercontent.com

Of course they accepted it because Judge Roberts is a Bush insider.

They should have waited till the appeals process was completed before weighing in on this, but since there's a rush to convict Trump of a crime before the election, they decided to listen to this hogwash.

 

[TNHarley]

Nothing more than the judiciary taking power they were never intended to have.

I cant believe you just fucking said that after the gag order thread.
You are a disingenuous liar.

 

[Concerned American]

Just remember folks, conservative justices have already decided the case in their head. The only thing to do now is find a way to justify it.

The text of the law is irrelevant.

HaHaHa, like democrat NY judge Engoron declaring Trump guilty before the trial? Hypocrite.

Read the Judge’s Ruling in the Trump Fraud Case

The decision by Justice Arthur F. Engoron is a major victory for Attorney General Letitia James in her lawsuit against Mr. Trump, effectively deciding that no trial was needed to determine that he had fraudulently secured favorable terms on loans and insurance deals.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Marener]

HaHaHa, like democrat NY judge Engoron declaring Trump guilty before the trial? Hypocrite.

I guess you never heard of a summary judgement.

 

[Concerned American]

I guess you never heard of a summary judgement.

Sure that is what you are "suggesting" is happening in the SCOTUS without any evidence---but that's what democrats do. Make summary judgements without evidence.

 

[jbrownson0831]

a game changer. maybe. do you think the billionaire federalist sponsors like leinard leo and harlan crowe want trump back? if not, he is gone.

Why would Dims want Trump back??

 

[jbrownson0831]

they do pretend that the founders were idiots don't they. finding obscure letters from inconsequential signers of the constitution to make your case while ignoring 200 years of precedent is not very original.

What 200 years of precedent rumpart?

 

[jbrownson0831]

no one is prosecuting their political opponents. they are common criminals.

wait, weatherman, are you talking about laws allowing slavery or the laws prohibiting the practice?

Nobody is a criminal until they are proved guilty of a crime....
like Joey Capone and his bagman Hunter....proven criminals.