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

[BackAgain]

Stacking the court is legal. Trump did it.

Wrong. FDR tried it and got shot the fuck down.

Trump didn’t do any such thing. .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I thought Kagan was the least stupid of the liberal hacks. Boy was I wrong. She apparently believes there is a time in which there is no commander in chief. We are doomed if liberals ever get the Supreme Court.

Go ahead and explain yourself on that one.

 

[hadit]

Yes, like the duplicitous hypocrite you are, on this issue.

I know.

I just looked for the rule that says no nominees in an election year... gee, couldn't find it...

Nope, no rule, only the ruminations of a hopeless mental case who thought he was expressing a cogent idea. No, it's legal for Quid Pro to attempt packing the court, but the Senate would have to go along with him, and I think there should be enough sane democrats left who would stop him from doing it. If not, expect TRUMP! to do the same thing next year with his Senate in place.

 

[hadit]

Wrong. FDR tried it and got shot the fuck down.

Trump didn’t do any such thing. .

They think TRUMP! acting legally and placing Justices in vacant positions on the court with the full backing of the Senate was "stacking" the Court. They're kind of stupid that way.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nope, no rule,

I know! And no rule against adding judges.

Like I said, if it happens, I don't want to hear a peep from you.

Especially the whiny crap about "changing rules in the middle of the game". Uh, please.explain to the class when the end and beginning of the game are, I.E, the time when we are in between presidents or Senates. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[hadit]

I know! And no rule against adding judges.

Like I said, if it happens, I don't want to hear a peep from you.

Especially the whiny crap about "changing rules in the middle of the game". Uh, please.explain to the class when the end and beginning of the game are, I.E, the time when we are in between presidents or Senates. It doesn't make any sense.

If there is a good reason to add Justices, the fair time would be to make the increase effective AFTER the president leaves office, so it's apparent he's not just a democrat trying to get a court he can manipulate to get the rulings he wants. Doing it when he can benefit to ram through stuff he wants is changing the rules in the middle of the game, and would backfire badly.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If there is a good reason to add Justices, the fair time would be to make the increase effective AFTER the president leaves office, so it's apparent he's not just a democrat trying to get a court he can manipulate to get the rulings he wants. Doing it when he can benefit to ram through stuff he wants is changing the rules in the middle of the game, and would backfire badly.

Oops, sorry, nobody asked you if you like it. And they don't have to ask you.

Just like nobody asked me if it was okay to replace, weeks before an election, the champion of women's rights for decades on the court with a religious nutsack whose title in her cult is literally, "Handmaiden".

Let's get a beer and cry together.

 

[Rogue AI]

Go ahead and explain yourself on that one.

Go ahead and listen to what she said. Once you fix your ignorance we can discuss the matter.

 

[Lesh]

Oh, no one's denying that the constitution allows the president to stack the court however he wants to as long as the Senate allows him to do it. What I'm pointing out is that the Court would become illegitimate overnight if Quid Pro Joe blatantly added Justices simply because he didn't like the rulings the Court was putting out. If he added 3 new Justices, for example, there would be no reason to accept the Court's rulings as fair and judicial.

Why would it become illicit then and not when McConnell stacked the Court?

 

[Lastamender]

No one else would have the gall to argue that they are above our laws.

Except Comey, Brennan,Clapper, and McCabe. Fauci too.

 

[pknopp]

Except Comey, Brennan,Clapper, and McCabe. Fauci too.

They aren't but sadly no one would hold them accountable.

 

[Lastamender]

They aren't but sadly no one would hold them accountable.

When you are not held accountable that is above the law.

 

[pknopp]

When you are not held accountable that is above the law.

It's corruption.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Go ahead and listen to what she said. Once you fix your ignorance we can discuss the matter.

I did. Didn't see that one. You can explain, maybe.

 

[Lastamender]

It's corruption.

The same thing dogging Trump.

 

[Clipper]

No one else would have the gall to argue that they are above our laws.

Trump is a lowlife criminal scumbag & his only shot at staying out of prison is to bring this immunity claim. And by judging by the questioning today from the right wing partisan hacks on the court, he might just get away with it.

 

[pknopp]

The same thing dogging Trump.

That's up to a court to decide.

 

[eagle1462010]

Trump is a lowlife criminal scumbag & his only shot at staying out of prison is to bring this immunity claim. And by judging by the questioning today from the right wing partisan hacks on the court, he might just get away with it.

You fuckers always confuse Trump for Biden.

Yeah the Big Guy. Money Laundeter N Chief. And lets put a top secret server in bathroom Clinton

 

[CowboyTed]

It sounded like the SCOTUS will choose the middle ground; they will rule that a President has limited immunity to a threshold that President Trump did not surpass.

The unlimited Immunity is not going to happen.

There is no way the SCOTUS is going to let what Trump did as a part of a Presidents roles..

They could slow ball it but they are not letting future Presidents rig an Elections...

 

[CowboyTed]

You fuckers always confuse Trump for Biden.

Yeah the Big Guy. Money Laundeter N Chief. And lets put a top secret server in bathroom Clinton

How about you fuck off and get some evidence...

You look like a guy sitting there wanking off using you imagination...