SCOTUS will hear Trump's IMMUNITY claim over criminal election interference charges

[Lesh]

And I wouldn't have a problem if Quid Pro had the chance to do what they did. I've said that. What I don't want is for the Court to become a democrat play toy, nothing more than another arm of the democrat party through adding more Justices until they get what they want. Replace dead Justices, yup. Replace retired Justices, yup.

You obviously have a problem with TRUMP! replacing ANY Justices, especially a liberal firebrand, and you'd REALLY freak out if he got to replace some more in the next 4 years.

What you don’t want is for Republicans to lose control of the Court

 

[hadit]

What you don’t want is for Republicans to lose control of the Court

Of course, I don't WANT democrats to lock down control of the Court so they can ignore the Constitution, but should Quid Pro get to replace a Justice or two, that's what happens. You, OTOH, transparently desire that the Court be controlled by democrats.

 

[Lesh]

Of course, I don't WANT democrats to lock down control of the Court so they can ignore the Constitution, but should Quid Pro get to replace a Justice or two, that's what happens. You, OTOH, transparently desire that the Court be controlled by democrats.

Of course you don’t and that’s at the root of all your arguments

 

[hadit]

Of course you don’t and that’s at the root of all your arguments

Yet you seem to think that's like all bad and stuff, even though I've stated repeatedly that I would be fine with Quid Pro having the opportunity to appoint Justices, if openings occur.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Obama did nothing to fight for a justice. He believed he was all above that and the Democrats made the fatal mistake in believing Hillary had the election won.

Fight...how? He had no power over the senate.

 

[whitehall]

The assumption of what cases the Supreme Court might hear isn't very interesting until the TDS left gets to salivate over the name "Trump". Why not wait until it happens?

 

[hadit]

Fight...how? He had no power over the senate.

They should have held the vote and made Obama realize there was no point in sending up further candidates. He ultimately deserved an up or down vote, that I agree with.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They should have held the vote and made Obama realize there was no point in sending up further candidates. He ultimately deserved an up or down vote, that I agree with.

McConnel.didnt hold.votes on much. McConnel shut down the senate like the self interested weasel he is.

 

[hadit]

McConnel.didnt hold.votes on much. McConnel shut down the senate like the self interested weasel he is.

That's SOP when control of Congress is divided. If the House is in the opposition's hands and the Senate in the president's, the Senate typically serves notice that there's little need for the House to send up any legislation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's SOP when control of Congress is divided.

False of course
The obstructionism of McConnell was unprecedented.

 

[hadit]

False of course
The obstructionism of McConnell was unprecedented.

He learned well from Reid.

 

[bripat9643]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity over criminal election interference charges, adding a new hurdle to a trial taking place.

The court in a brief order said it would hear arguments and issue a ruling on the immunity claim. In the meantime, the case is on hold, meaning no trial can take place.

The order said the court would hear the case the week of April 22.

The case could take months to resolve.

Even if Trump loses, the trial would not take place until well into election season. If Trump were to win in a ruling, the charges would be dismissed.

More at the link below...

Supreme Court to consider Trump immunity claim in further delay of election interference trial

Even if the justices ultimately rule against Trump, the court’s intervention puts the trial’s start date in question.

www.nbcnews.com

This should be a no-brainer - but we'll see. Another stalling tactic for Trump. What do you think?

Yes, a no brainer, but the opposite of what you think.

Biden loses again!.

 

[pknopp]

Fight...how? He had no power over the senate.

You go on television and state your case. You refuse to pass what the Senate sends you until you get a vote on your nominee.

As I said, he thought the Democrats had 2016 in the bag.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He learned well from Reid.

Sorry, that won't work for you. Unprecedented.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You go on television and state your case.

 

[hadit]

Sorry, that won't work for you. Unprecedented.

Merely an extension of what went before.