Supreme Court thumbing the scale for Trump.

[AntonToo]

Well, we certainly know that Democrats have been thumbing the scale for over six years now.

How? What are talking about?

 

[AntonToo]

Everyone is a "criminal" by that standard of being technically guilty of some obscure crime that no one is ever prosectuted for.

Having his trial rushed due to an election is NOT being treated "like anyone else."

That’s because others don’t suddenly get immunity from the law by landing a new job. Duh.

You pretending that there is not a unique circumstance, well justifying court decision priority is denying the obvious. You look silly.

 

[AntonToo]

And I'll explain it to you as many times as needed: DOJ policy is not law,

It’s the de-facto REALITY of DOJ practice.

A court cannot simply ignore that, just like they can’t ignore the fact that even if somehow DOJ guidance gets thrown out Trump will simply use whatever presidential powers he has to squash the cases, subverting due justice process.

There is absolutely no way for cases against Trump to complete if they are stalled and he makes it to the White House. Urgency for SC to settle presidential immunity case while allowing cases to proceed is EASILY justified. It’s common sense itself.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That’s because others don’t suddenly get immunity from the law by landing a new job. Duh.

Fine.

Then don’t say you want him treated like everyone else. Say “I want him singled out since he’ll be president soon if the justice system is not weaponized to interfere with the democratic process.” Since that’s what you’re admitting to.

Your honesty on that point is refreshing, by the way.

You pretending that there is not a unique circumstance, well justifying court decision priority is denying the obvious. You look silly.

Just trying to get you to admit what the “unique circumstances” really are.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It’s the de-facto REALITY of DOJ practice.

A court cannot simply ignore that, just like they can’t ignore the fact that even if somehow DOJ guidance gets thrown out Trump will simply use whatever presidential powers he has to squash the cases, subverting due justice process.

There is absolutely no way for cases against Trump to complete if they are stalled and he makes it to the White House. Urgency for SC to settle presidential immunity case while allowing cases to proceed is EASILY justified. It’s common sense itself.

The courts can absolutely over ride or ignore DOJ policy. They are courts of law not courts of policy.

The court can and must also ignore the political goal of stopping a popular former president from being elected again. If a justice suggested a desired election outcome as the reason behind a ruling, they should be quickly impeached.

On a practical level, the prosecutors should have known that they would be overmatched taking on Trumps legal teams. Next time maybe vett these affirmative action hires before sending them after Trump. Find out about their corruption and amorality yourselves instead of letting Team Trump find it.

Suppose Trump were convicted before the election but won the election anyway. What do you see happening then?

 

[AntonToo]

The courts can absolutely over ride or ignore DOJ policy. legal teams.

Prosecutors who are governed by those guidelines can't.

Trump's AG can simply fire them for not complying, so your arguments are not grounded in reality.

 

[Moonglow]

Conservative SC majority is now shedding any pretence still left to partisan impartiality.

Trump has little to stand on in his criminal trials, so his only end game is delaying them long enough to again make it to the White House and put himself above the law.

Nobody seriously thinks SC is going to grant Trump immunity, nobody thinks they will overturn iron-clad lower court ruling....but we have a Supreme Court that seems to be willing to use that excuse to play along and halt Trump's criminal trials for months, making it near impossible from them to complete before election.

It's been 135 days since Jack Smith asked the court to expedite descision on immunuty...nope! They insist on taking no less than 5 months to settle an obvious no-brainer outcome.

Even if there was some argument about how busy they are or how complex of case this is , they still didn't have to do it this way. SC could have simply allowed the trials to go on, while they square away these go-nowhere immunity claims.

In Taking Up Trump’s Immunity Claim, Supreme Court Bolstered His Delay Strategy

By scheduling a hearing for late April on the former president’s assertion that he cannot be prosecuted for his actions in office, the justices increased the chances that he will not face trial by Election Day.

www.nytimes.com

We knew Thomas was an unrepentant Trumptard and Alito is not far behind, but for the rest to go along with this ridiculous shit?

This marks a whole new low for Supreme Court, whole new level of partisanship and this is not going to end well.

New, this shit ain't new it's old hat.

 

[AntonToo]

On a practical level, the prosecutors should have known that they would be overmatched taking on Trumps legal teams.

Didn't realize Supreme Court was an extension of Trump's legal teams.

 

[AntonToo]

New, this shit ain't new it's old hat.

I don't recall anything THIS blatant.

 

[AntonToo]

Suppose Trump were convicted before the election but won the election anyway. What do you see happening then?

At very least due justice process and re-affirmation that no one in this country is above the law. Thats a fundamental historic precedent to establish in all of this that will have very long term implications for our governing.

I don't see Trump winning if that happens, but even if he does, to me thats beside the point. If people want a convicted criminal in the Wihite House, then so be it.

 

[Independent thinker]

How? What are talking about?

You have a one sided memory.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Prosecutors who are governed by those guidelines can't.

The courts can, should, and will.

Trump's AG can simply fire them for not complying, so your arguments are not grounded in reality.

Don’t get me wrong. If Trump gets elected, the “Get Trump” loons are gone from the DOJ. We agree about that.

Didn't realize Supreme Court was an extension of Trump's legal teams.

All the USSC did was not break precedent to fast track a hearing. You’re reading way too much into that. They applied law and precedent, rather than give Trumps prosecutors special favors.

What should happen if Trump is convicted before the election but wins anyway?

 

[AntonToo]

All the USSC did was not break precedent to fast track a hearing

Again, short of some new revelations, I'm never going to agree with your on that. We have a unique cirmstance that more than justifies court's expedited considerations or at least allowance for the cases to proceed, while they deliberate.

1. President can't be realistically prosecuted while in office.
2. They have a solid lower court ruling already.
3. Conclusion that Trump doesn't have immunity is foregone 8-0, or 8-1 descision.

For those reasons there is little explanation for SC stalling the justice process and it is tough to explain it aside from political motives.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Again I'm never going to agree with your on that. We have unique cirmstance that more than justifies court's expedited considerations or at least allowance for the cases to proceed.

1. President can't be realistically prosecuted.
2. They have a solid lower court ruling already.
3. Conclusion that Trump doesn't have immunity is foregone.

For those reasons there is little explanation for SC stalling the justice process and it is tough to explain it aside from political motives.

I could see logic in your claim that the USSC itself is acting in a partisan way to sway the election IF they were breaking precedent by inserting a layer between themselves and the “solid lower court ruling.” They are not. The usual, the default, the long-standing precedent, is that appellate courts look at the appeal before the highest court in the land does.

“But, I HATE Trump!” That’s not much of a legal argument.

 

[AntonToo]

I could see logic in your claim that the USSC itself is acting in a partisan way to sway the election IF they were breaking precedent by inserting a layer between themselves and the “solid lower court ruling.” They are not. The usual, the default, the long-standing precedent, is that appellate courts look at the appeal before the highest court in the land does.

“But, I HATE Trump!” That’s not much of a legal argument.

They absolutely ARE breaking precedent by seemingly ignoring clear reasons for expedited descision or allowance for cases to proceed.

SC already has the lower court descision and you speak as if SC has never expedited or waived anything in the past.

 

[Seymour Flops]

They absolutely ARE breaking precedent by seemingly ignoring clear reasons for expedited descision or allowance for cases to proceed.

SC already has the lower court descision and you speak as if SC has never expedited or waived anything in the past.

As you say, we will never agree on that.

So, what should happen if Trump is convicted before the election but wins anyway?

 

[AntonToo]

So, what should happen if Trump is convicted before the election but wins anyway?

Again, if people want to elect a convicted criminal to the White House then so be it.

Fundamentally the historic preceedent and principle needs to be re-affirmed in stone - we are a country of laws and no man is above them. This will have important implications for our governing well beyond Trump's presidency.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Again, if people want to elect a convicted criminal to the White House then so be it.

Fundamentally the historic preceedent and principle needs to be re-affirmed in stone - we are a country of laws and no man is above them. This will have important implications in our governing well beyond Trump's presidency.

Fair enough, I didn’t realize you had answered.

Well, brace yourself. In the extremely unlikely event Trump is convicted, it is more likely not less likely that he will win. He would join Nelson Mandela, Bobby Sands, and others in being elected though a convicted criminal.

Mandela spoke out against Apartheid. Bobby sands blew up a furniture factory. What was Trump’s worst crime?

 

[AntonToo]

Mandela spoke out against Apartheid. Bobby sands blew up a furniture factory. What was Trump’s worst crime?

Corruptly attempting to subvert an American election in 2020.

Though it's not a competition.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Corruptly attempting to subvert an American election in 2020.

Though it's not a competition.

No, I mean the actual crime? That’s a description of a whole set of grievances that either side could apply to the other.

Jack Smith and the others are corruptly attempting to subvert an American election in 2024. But that’s not a specific crime.