Are the Conservative USSC Justices Not Looking to the Future... or are They?

[BertramN]

.



Are the Conservative USSC Justices Not Looking to the Future... or are They?

Brett Kavanaugh’s 15-year-old law review could give the nation a clue at how he could rule in trump's immunity case. In his paper, “Kavanaugh didn't support blanket immunity and said prosecution could occur after a president's term,” which is what has happened at both the federal and state levels.

But if the conservative USSC Justices are looking to the future and planning to open the door to trump’s dictatorship, they must rule to protect trump from his current legal woes. However, that ruling cannot guarantee the same blanket immunity, as demanded by trump, to Biden for the remainder of his presidency. A perplexing problem for the conservative Justices.

The conservative Justices must also consider the unlimited power they would be guaranteeing the future dictator trump. Granting such unlimited presidential power, coupled with trump’s vindictive nature, the conservative Justices’ decision could jeopardize their own survival after January 20, 2025. This is the date trump’s revenge tour begins.

MSN

.

 

[Rogue AI]

Unlike liberals, who are slaves to their petty emotions, the conservative Justices will look at the case before them and decide accordingly. Let's face it, unless the Justices rule to execute Trump on the spot, you folks will cry anyway. It must be sad to be driven by TDS. Whatever will you folks do when Trump is no longer relevant and you realize you've wasted the better part of a decade hating one man? Your lives will be empty.

 

[Mac1958]

.



Are the Conservative USSC Justices Not Looking to the Future... or are They?

Brett Kavanaugh’s 15-year-old law review could give the nation a clue at how he could rule in trump's immunity case. In his paper, “Kavanaugh didn't support blanket immunity and said prosecution could occur after a president's term,” which is what has happened at both the federal and state levels.

But if the conservative USSC Justices are looking to the future and planning to open the door to trump’s dictatorship, they must rule to protect trump from his current legal woes. However, that ruling cannot guarantee the same blanket immunity, as demanded by trump, to Biden for the remainder of his presidency. A perplexing problem for the conservative Justices.

The conservative Justices must also consider the unlimited power they would be guaranteeing the future dictator trump. Granting such unlimited presidential power, coupled with trump’s vindictive nature, the conservative Justices’ decision could jeopardize their own survival after January 20, 2025. This is the date trump’s revenge tour begins.

MSN

View attachment 939935






.

Interesting.

If he went full bore, the Court would remain intact as long as it was useful to him. Otherwise, I suspect he'd just ignore any of their rulings. Once he did that the first time, the Court would be irrelevant.

 

[cnm]

Unlike liberals, who are slaves to their petty emotions, the conservative Justices will look at the case before them and decide accordingly.

Most of the conservative Justices certainly are not following their own wittering. They've ignored the LOTUS's case entirely. I'm not aware of one time they've mentioned it except to say they don't want to think about it. They've gone rogue...

The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.​

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

​

 

[MarcATL]

We don't have a SCOTUS, we have a wing of The Heritage Foundation's lawfare brigade.

 

[elektra]

Trump never said the president has Blanket Immunity

Presidential immunity. Is not blanket immunity. The fake news is out in full force and all the low intellect minions parrot the spin.

If Trumps says, one thing, the Democrats twist it into words he never said.
Presidential immunity, not something we have discussed. Is it something another president has used, claimed? Is this something brand new. Most likely if we search the words, we will not find the truth. Bing and Google will attach those search words to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, AP, and all the other Democrat propaganda mouthpieces.

 

[cnm]

Is this something brand new.

See it anywhere in the Constitution?

 

[cnm]

The SCOTUS conservative majority's claim to Originalism?

Absolutely.

 

[elektra]

Here is an article speaking of presidential immunity. A start if people have all day to research. A start meaning, we could take the points made and do further research. This is only a portion of an article, more information is needed.

But this is a good starting point to find terms or ideas to do further research on. One thing can be said, with all the controversies the Democrats create and thus force into the Supreme Court, this Conservative Supreme court is building a historical legacy that will be taught in law schools forever in history. Nobody will forget, people will learn, hundreds of books will be written.

We must thank the Democrats, for creating the strongest court, and ruling in history.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40574648

 

[struth]

Most of the conservative Justices certainly are not following their own wittering. They've ignored the LOTUS's case entirely. I'm not aware of one time they've mentioned it except to say they don't want to think about it. They've gone rogue...

The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.​

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

​

Are you saying they don’t have a case or controversy in front of them to rule on?

 

[elektra]

See it anywhere in the Constitution?

Actually, yes. The Supreme Court throughout our history has addressed this issue, and each time it gets stronger and stronger. More established. This is great opportunity the democrats have given a conservative court. To become the strongest, most important supreme court in history.

 

[struth]

.



Are the Conservative USSC Justices Not Looking to the Future... or are They?

Brett Kavanaugh’s 15-year-old law review could give the nation a clue at how he could rule in trump's immunity case. In his paper, “Kavanaugh didn't support blanket immunity and said prosecution could occur after a president's term,” which is what has happened at both the federal and state levels.

But if the conservative USSC Justices are looking to the future and planning to open the door to trump’s dictatorship, they must rule to protect trump from his current legal woes. However, that ruling cannot guarantee the same blanket immunity, as demanded by trump, to Biden for the remainder of his presidency. A perplexing problem for the conservative Justices.

The conservative Justices must also consider the unlimited power they would be guaranteeing the future dictator trump. Granting such unlimited presidential power, coupled with trump’s vindictive nature, the conservative Justices’ decision could jeopardize their own survival after January 20, 2025. This is the date trump’s revenge tour begins.

MSN

View attachment 939935






.

The argument isn’t about blanket immunity. Presidential immunity deals with immunity of prosecution from official acts

The reality is this never had to be litigated because it was always just assumed and we never had demafasict prosecuting their political rivals

 

[Rogue AI]

Most of the conservative Justices certainly are not following their own wittering. They've ignored the LOTUS's case entirely. I'm not aware of one time they've mentioned it except to say they don't want to think about it. They've gone rogue...

The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.​

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

​

Like that ridiculous ruling on gay marriage? Clearly the Court usurped the power of the states, as the states are the only issuing authority of marriage licenses. The Court should be expected to correct the grievous mistakes of the past.

 

[elektra]

Like that ridiculous ruling on gay marriage? Clearly the Court usurped the power of the states, as the states are the only issuing authority of marriage licenses. The Court should be expected to correct the grievous mistakes of the past.

California voted against Gay Marriage. Overwhelmingly minorities do not recognize Gay marriage.

 

[jbrownson0831]

.



Are the Conservative USSC Justices Not Looking to the Future... or are They?

Brett Kavanaugh’s 15-year-old law review could give the nation a clue at how he could rule in trump's immunity case. In his paper, “Kavanaugh didn't support blanket immunity and said prosecution could occur after a president's term,” which is what has happened at both the federal and state levels.

But if the conservative USSC Justices are looking to the future and planning to open the door to trump’s dictatorship, they must rule to protect trump from his current legal woes. However, that ruling cannot guarantee the same blanket immunity, as demanded by trump, to Biden for the remainder of his presidency. A perplexing problem for the conservative Justices.

The conservative Justices must also consider the unlimited power they would be guaranteeing the future dictator trump. Granting such unlimited presidential power, coupled with trump’s vindictive nature, the conservative Justices’ decision could jeopardize their own survival after January 20, 2025. This is the date trump’s revenge tour begins.

MSN

View attachment 939935






.

You libtards are so naive. You already live in a dictatorship under someone who avoids having anything to do with the law. Edicts left and right, a banana republic. You should go to Oz and see if the Wizard has a spare brain for you.

 

[elektra]

You libtards are so naive. You already live in a dictatorship under someone who avoids having anything to do with the law. Edicts left and right, a banana republic. You should go to Oz and see if the Wizard has a spare brain for you.

The libtards, Democrats, must attack everything. The Democrats are literally fighting to become dictators. Democrats/Libtards are the authoritarians. They do not join us in a discussion, they spew hate. Not knowledge. They attack and must have the last word, which is always hate.

Every thread in politics, always ends up to be an exchange of insults

 

[jbrownson0831]

The libtards, Democrats, must attack everything. The Democrats are literally fighting to become dictators. Democrats/Libtards are the authoritarians. They do not join us in a discussion, they spew hate. Not knowledge. They attack and must have the last word, which is always hate.

Every thread in politics, always ends up to be an exchange of insults

Its laughable though that they accuse us of being the dictators.

 

[Marener]

You libtards are so naive. You already live in a dictatorship under someone who avoids having anything to do with the law. Edicts left and right, a banana republic. You should go to Oz and see if the Wizard has a spare brain for you.

You really need to stop listening to conservative media. They are rotting your brain.

The president has a lot of authority. These aren't edicts, they're executing the law.

 

[DGS49]

as I have written before in this space, this is a simple case, and we know how it will turn out. When the President is acting as President, he has absolute immunity. When he is acting as a private citizen, he has no immunity, but cannot be prosecuted while he is in office.

In close cases of whether he is acting as President or private citizen, it is up to the fact-finder (judge or jury) to make that call.

This case will be kicked back to the trial court.

It is incredible how much time, money, and words are being wasted analyzing this case. It is simple and we know how it will end.

This is why I was not a great law school student. I just came to the right conclusion and didn't fill Blue Books with pointless speculation.

 

[elektra]

The Supreme Court throughout our history has addressed this issue, and each time it gets stronger and stronger. More established. This is great opportunity the democrats have given a conservative court. To become the strongest, most important supreme court in history.