The courts were never going to save America from Donald Trump

‘The Supreme Court has ordered the most important of former President Donald Trump’s four criminal trials to be put on hold indefinitely. It’s an extraordinary victory for Trump and a devastating blow to special counsel Jack Smith. The Court’s decision also raises serious doubts about whether these justices will allow a trial to take place before the November election.

Many Court observers, including myself, were shocked by Wednesday’s order because it appeared to rest on the flimsiest of pretexts. The ostensible reason why the Court ordered Trump’s trial paused is so the justices could spend the next few months considering Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution for any “official acts” he engaged in while he was still president.

This is an exceptionally weak legal argument, with monstrous implications. Trump’s lawyers told one of the judges who ruled against this immunity claim that a former president could not be prosecuted, even if he ordered “SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival,” unless the president was first successfully impeached and convicted (by lawmakers that, under Trump’s argument, the president could order killed if they attempted to impeach him).

There are, of course, historical examples of the Supreme Court behaving less deferentially toward presidents who thumb their nose at the law. The most well-known is United States v. Nixon (1974), the Court’s decision ordering President Richard Nixon to turn over tape recordings that implicated him in a crime, eventually leading to Nixon’s resignation.

The decision to halt Trump’s trial, however, fits within a different judicial tradition, which is no less robust and no less prominent in the Supreme Court’s history. The judiciary is a weak institution, staffed by political officials who are often reluctant to stand against popular authoritarian policies or movements. Indeed, the justices themselves often belong to those movements.’


Trump committed treasonous, historic crimes: attempting to overturn a presidential election, disenfranchise millions of Americans, and disrupt peaceful transfer of power – none of which constitute ‘official acts.’
Because the SCOTUS follow the law, so the dreaming left will always feel hard done by
 
In the unlikely case that Trumps is elected, but the Dems win the house, the Dems should have the legislation prepared, per the recent court decision, to bar Trump from holding office.
The House is sworn in on Jan. 3, The President on Jan. 20. That gives them plenty of time.
They should also pass some type of censure of SCOTUS for this ridiculous decision.
1. If Trump wins the election and democrats win the House, and House democrats pass legislation that bars Trump from holding office, Trump can ignore it, or take his case to the USSC. That would be one cool situation because the House has no enforcement mechanism.

2. The USSC outranks the House. The USSC is 1/3 of the government, the House is 1/6th.
 
I'll bet SCOTUS delays the Immunity case until after the 2024 election. They'll want to see who's elected before they decide if the President gets full immunity. They have no shame and no credibility!
Democrats have no shame nor credibility. Why did they wait 3-years to file charges against Trump?
We all know its election interference, so stop whining about the USSC delaying things past the election.
The USSC is 100% right. Democrats are disgraceful.
 
Democrats have no shame nor credibility.
That would be Trump and his cult.
Including SCOTUS.
Why did they wait 3-years to file charges against Trump?
Trump and his cult don't know how courts work.
We all know its election interference, so stop whining about the USSC delaying things past the election.
SCOTUS rigged the election, everyone knows it.
The 14th amendment is clear.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Trump and some congresspeople did exactly that.
The USSC is 100% right. Democrats are disgraceful.
USSC is disgraceful and 100% wrong.
 
‘The Supreme Court has ordered the most important of former President Donald Trump’s four criminal trials to be put on hold indefinitely. It’s an extraordinary victory for Trump and a devastating blow to special counsel Jack Smith. The Court’s decision also raises serious doubts about whether these justices will allow a trial to take place before the November election.

Many Court observers, including myself, were shocked by Wednesday’s order because it appeared to rest on the flimsiest of pretexts. The ostensible reason why the Court ordered Trump’s trial paused is so the justices could spend the next few months considering Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution for any “official acts” he engaged in while he was still president.

This is an exceptionally weak legal argument, with monstrous implications. Trump’s lawyers told one of the judges who ruled against this immunity claim that a former president could not be prosecuted, even if he ordered “SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival,” unless the president was first successfully impeached and convicted (by lawmakers that, under Trump’s argument, the president could order killed if they attempted to impeach him).

There are, of course, historical examples of the Supreme Court behaving less deferentially toward presidents who thumb their nose at the law. The most well-known is United States v. Nixon (1974), the Court’s decision ordering President Richard Nixon to turn over tape recordings that implicated him in a crime, eventually leading to Nixon’s resignation.

The decision to halt Trump’s trial, however, fits within a different judicial tradition, which is no less robust and no less prominent in the Supreme Court’s history. The judiciary is a weak institution, staffed by political officials who are often reluctant to stand against popular authoritarian policies or movements. Indeed, the justices themselves often belong to those movements.’


Trump committed treasonous, historic crimes: attempting to overturn a presidential election, disenfranchise millions of Americans, and disrupt peaceful transfer of power – none of which constitute ‘official acts.’

No, mostly because Trump hadn't been convicted of anything, the courts couldn't justify stopping Trump from being on the ballots.
 
That would be Trump and his cult.
Including SCOTUS.

Trump and his cult don't know how courts work.

SCOTUS rigged the election, everyone knows it.
The 14th amendment is clear.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Trump and some congresspeople did exactly that.

USSC is disgraceful and 100% wrong.
I suggest you seek psychiatric help, you are beyond delusional, you feel you're above 9 SC justices, and on a scale of 1 to 100, your TDS level is 23,649. The contents of your attic is ill.

But one thing you do impress me about is the ability to type on a forum wearing a straight jacket.
 
I suggest you seek psychiatric help, you are beyond delusional,
As usual, you're FOS.
you feel you're above 9 SC justices,
They are corrupt.
They ignored everything.

Wisconsin false electors admit their actions were used in ...​

1709820349951.png
WPR
https://www.wpr.org › politics › wisconsin-false-electors-...

Dec 6, 2023 — “Ten MAGA Republican fake electors today publicly admitted that they ... Former Wisconsin GOP Chair says false electors were 'tricked' · Former ...

6 Republicans who falsely certified that Trump won ...​

1709820628593.png
CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com › Politics

Dec 6, 2023 — A Nevada grand jury has indicted six Republicans who submitted certificates to Congress falsely declaring Donald Trump the winner of the ...


Over a dozen Capitol rioters say they were following Trump's ...​

1709820463787.png
ABC News - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos
https://abcnews.go.com › story

Feb 9, 2021 — As President Trump's second impeachment trial arrives, Senate Democrats are trying to tie a direct line between his rhetoric and the deadly ...


Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

That's all that is needed according to the 14th amendment.



and on a scale of 1 to 100, your TDS level is 23,649. The contents of your attic is ill.
Poor teabagger, your Trump Devotion Syndrome is desperate, but Trump loves you very much.
But one thing you do impress me about is the ability to type on a forum wearing a straight jacket.
How you can see to type with your ass, so far up Trump ass impresses me.
 
‘The Supreme Court has ordered the most important of former President Donald Trump’s four criminal trials to be put on hold indefinitely. It’s an extraordinary victory for Trump and a devastating blow to special counsel Jack Smith. The Court’s decision also raises serious doubts about whether these justices will allow a trial to take place before the November election.

Many Court observers, including myself, were shocked by Wednesday’s order because it appeared to rest on the flimsiest of pretexts. The ostensible reason why the Court ordered Trump’s trial paused is so the justices could spend the next few months considering Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution for any “official acts” he engaged in while he was still president.

This is an exceptionally weak legal argument, with monstrous implications. Trump’s lawyers told one of the judges who ruled against this immunity claim that a former president could not be prosecuted, even if he ordered “SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival,” unless the president was first successfully impeached and convicted (by lawmakers that, under Trump’s argument, the president could order killed if they attempted to impeach him).

There are, of course, historical examples of the Supreme Court behaving less deferentially toward presidents who thumb their nose at the law. The most well-known is United States v. Nixon (1974), the Court’s decision ordering President Richard Nixon to turn over tape recordings that implicated him in a crime, eventually leading to Nixon’s resignation.

The decision to halt Trump’s trial, however, fits within a different judicial tradition, which is no less robust and no less prominent in the Supreme Court’s history. The judiciary is a weak institution, staffed by political officials who are often reluctant to stand against popular authoritarian policies or movements. Indeed, the justices themselves often belong to those movements.’


Trump committed treasonous, historic crimes: attempting to overturn a presidential election, disenfranchise millions of Americans, and disrupt peaceful transfer of power – none of which constitute ‘official acts.’

crying gif.gif
 
1. If Trump wins the election and democrats win the House, and House democrats pass legislation that bars Trump from holding office, Trump can ignore it, or take his case to the USSC. That would be one cool situation because the House has no enforcement mechanism.

2. The USSC outranks the House. The USSC is 1/3 of the government, the House is 1/6th.

According to the recent SCOTUS ruling, Congressional legislation is EXACTLY what is required to enforce A. 14 S. 3.

(Haven't you been paying attention?)

SCOTUS would have to contradict themselves to overrule the legislation.

Of course, with this SCOTUS anything is possible.
 
‘The Supreme Court has ordered the most important of former President Donald Trump’s four criminal trials to be put on hold indefinitely. It’s an extraordinary victory for Trump and a devastating blow to special counsel Jack Smith. The Court’s decision also raises serious doubts about whether these justices will allow a trial to take place before the November election.

Many Court observers, including myself, were shocked by Wednesday’s order because it appeared to rest on the flimsiest of pretexts. The ostensible reason why the Court ordered Trump’s trial paused is so the justices could spend the next few months considering Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution for any “official acts” he engaged in while he was still president.

This is an exceptionally weak legal argument, with monstrous implications. Trump’s lawyers told one of the judges who ruled against this immunity claim that a former president could not be prosecuted, even if he ordered “SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival,” unless the president was first successfully impeached and convicted (by lawmakers that, under Trump’s argument, the president could order killed if they attempted to impeach him).

There are, of course, historical examples of the Supreme Court behaving less deferentially toward presidents who thumb their nose at the law. The most well-known is United States v. Nixon (1974), the Court’s decision ordering President Richard Nixon to turn over tape recordings that implicated him in a crime, eventually leading to Nixon’s resignation.

The decision to halt Trump’s trial, however, fits within a different judicial tradition, which is no less robust and no less prominent in the Supreme Court’s history. The judiciary is a weak institution, staffed by political officials who are often reluctant to stand against popular authoritarian policies or movements. Indeed, the justices themselves often belong to those movements.’


Trump committed treasonous, historic crimes: attempting to overturn a presidential election, disenfranchise millions of Americans, and disrupt peaceful transfer of power – none of which constitute ‘official acts.’
Big victory for America commie Mrs. Jones.
Where will you move? Your Reichbabble is sounding more...and more...and more desperate.
 
Democrats have no shame nor credibility. Why did they wait 3-years to file charges against Trump?
We all know its election interference, so stop whining about the USSC delaying things past the election.
The USSC is 100% right. Democrats are disgraceful.

You're apparently drunk on the MAGA Koolaid.

The DOJ operates independently of the political system. (Except when Trump is President).

The 3-year delay was harshly criticized by Democrats. It played right into Trump's hand.

No one knows why Garland waited so long before appointing a special prosecutor - but whatever the reason, Democrats were not happy with it.
 
Right....It's not "self-enacting" like you moonbats were claiming that it was for months on end.

The recent SCOTUS decision was pure bunk. Expect Congress to pass legislation clarifying this.

The whole notion of a Constitutional amendment not being self-enacting is pure BULLSHIT!

SCOTUS has considered every other part of the Constitution as 'self-enacting' and has been ruling on them since this country was founded.

There is no reason why A 14 S. 3 should be treated any differently.

SCOTUS has proven that they are partisan hacks. They have no credibility.

I just wonder what thug tactics were used against the Liberal Justices to force them to go along with this.
 
Right....It's not "self-enacting" like you moonbats were claiming that it was for months on end.
Yes, it is.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

To REMOVE such a disability.
 
‘The Supreme Court has ordered the most important of former President Donald Trump’s four criminal trials to be put on hold indefinitely. It’s an extraordinary victory for Trump and a devastating blow to special counsel Jack Smith. The Court’s decision also raises serious doubts about whether these justices will allow a trial to take place before the November election.

Many Court observers, including myself, were shocked by Wednesday’s order because it appeared to rest on the flimsiest of pretexts. The ostensible reason why the Court ordered Trump’s trial paused is so the justices could spend the next few months considering Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution for any “official acts” he engaged in while he was still president.

This is an exceptionally weak legal argument, with monstrous implications. Trump’s lawyers told one of the judges who ruled against this immunity claim that a former president could not be prosecuted, even if he ordered “SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival,” unless the president was first successfully impeached and convicted (by lawmakers that, under Trump’s argument, the president could order killed if they attempted to impeach him).

There are, of course, historical examples of the Supreme Court behaving less deferentially toward presidents who thumb their nose at the law. The most well-known is United States v. Nixon (1974), the Court’s decision ordering President Richard Nixon to turn over tape recordings that implicated him in a crime, eventually leading to Nixon’s resignation.

The decision to halt Trump’s trial, however, fits within a different judicial tradition, which is no less robust and no less prominent in the Supreme Court’s history. The judiciary is a weak institution, staffed by political officials who are often reluctant to stand against popular authoritarian policies or movements. Indeed, the justices themselves often belong to those movements.’


Trump committed treasonous, historic crimes: attempting to overturn a presidential election, disenfranchise millions of Americans, and disrupt peaceful transfer of power – none of which constitute ‘official acts.’
Don’t you a rabid D Party partisan with TDS raging, find it strange an ex-President is facing multiple persecutions and money judgments? In this country, presidents and 1%ers almost never face any kind of significant legal actions. They are above the law.

How is it Trump faces all these persecutions, yet outright war criminals like W, O, and Genocide Joe face none?

PS. I don’t expect a reasoned response.


People in Donald Trump’s social and financial class, even if they aren’t ex-presidents of the United States, don’t get prosecuted. They are unequivocally above the law. The courts are primarily for convicting poor and working-class defendants who are often innocent. You can scour the huge prison system in this country, and you won’t find any former One Percenters incarcerated there. The system is designed to protect them, in the extremely rare instances where they are actually charged with a crime. Those with Trump’s resources should have a “Dream Team” of legal representatives that puts O.J.’s lawyers to shame. Instead, Trump’s lawyers have all been laughingstocks, the kind a ghetto denizen might get assigned to him. And unlike every wealthy man before him, Trump cannot seem to win in any courtroom.
Trumpenstein and the Death of Politics
 
As usual, you're FOS.

They are corrupt.
They ignored everything.

Wisconsin false electors admit their actions were used in ...



View attachment 913517
WPR
https://www.wpr.org › politics › wisconsin-false-electors-...
Dec 6, 2023 — “Ten MAGA Republican fake electors today publicly admitted that they ... Former Wisconsin GOP Chair says false electors were 'tricked' · Former ...

6 Republicans who falsely certified that Trump won ...

View attachment 913520
CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com › Politics
Dec 6, 2023 — A Nevada grand jury has indicted six Republicans who submitted certificates to Congress falsely declaring Donald Trump the winner of the ...


Over a dozen Capitol rioters say they were following Trump's ...

View attachment 913519
ABC News - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos
https://abcnews.go.com › story
Feb 9, 2021 — As President Trump's second impeachment trial arrives, Senate Democrats are trying to tie a direct line between his rhetoric and the deadly ...


Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

That's all that is needed according to the 14th amendment.




Poor teabagger, your Trump Devotion Syndrome is desperate, but Trump loves you very much.

How you can see to type with your ass, so far up Trump ass impresses me.
Seriously, go and get yourself sorted, you're a crank and probably a danger to others.
 

Forum List

Back
Top