Breaking News: Supreme Court accepts Jan. 6 case that could affect Jack Smith's Trump Prosecution

[Dante]

Democrats make their claims and then try to manufacture evidence to support their claims while ignoring everything that proves they're wrong.

You people are always accusing others of what you do, as if that helps deflect the truth.

 

[hadit]

Reading the statute seems like a good place to start. The statute is clear but apparently we aren’t supposed to go by what the law actually says but what some justices think the people who wrote the law MEANT to say.

And we trust the Justices to have a great deal of legal expertise and experience applying the Constitution when they look at a case like this. Let's see what they have to say before condemning any outcome, just because we like it or not. It's actually a good move to make sure you have standing to try charges before actually expending the effort to do so. One would have thought they would have checked before now, but whatever...

 

[Dante]

Blah, blah, blah--I don't buy the distraction whiner. You're complaining about a SCOTUS decision that hasn't happened yet, snowflake.

As are Trump team, and Trump world.

thank you

 

[Dante]

Remember thinkers
When USSC drops Smith on his ass and favors Trump; lib loons will swear they did not. A Muller denial of reality of outcome repeat

Really?

keeper post

 

[Concerned American]

As are Trump team, and Trump world.

thank you

Read the thread snowflake.

 

[Winston]

th BuT dER DeeBATZ wUR reCOded.

Originalism is intellectually bankrupt. It’s a farce and everyone knows it. Nothing more than the judiciary taking power they were never intended to have.

Not only is it intellectually bankrupt, it is a total farce. Scalia demonstrated that in spades. There were so many contradictions in his rulings that it makes your head spin.

While Heller stood above them all as a demonstration of just how full of shit originalism is, the reversal of Rowe was beyond the pale.

Read Alito's ruling. Hell, it is comical to anyone with any real knowledge of American History. The "originalism" argument goes back to the middle of the 19th century. It totally ignores the "founders", it totally ignores Colonial America. Back then, abortion was an accepted practice before the quickening. Native Americans, and black slaves, knew of herbs that could be administered to render an abortion. And that was an accepted practice. Even the Puritans engaged in the practice. Hell, the Southern Baptist Convention came out in favor of abortion in the 1970's. Look it up.

But no, Alito goes to the middle of the 19th century and the creation of the AMA. Bans against abortion were merely a tactic used by male doctors to wrestle away control of pregnancies from midwifes, mostly Native Americans and former slaves. And they were successful, to this day, there have been millions of lives lost, both mothers and children, because of it. The United States is the only developed country that does not have a significant midwife program. And we have the highest maternal and infant mortality rate. That is not a coincidence.

 

[Marener]

And we trust the Justices to have a great deal of legal expertise and experience applying the Constitution when they look at a case like this. Let's see what they have to say before condemning any outcome, just because we like it or not. It's actually a good move to make sure you have standing to try charges before actually expending the effort to do so. One would have thought they would have checked before now, but whatever...

The conservative justices don’t deserve our trust. They’re violated it too often.

Half of your post is gibberish. “Standing”? That makes no sense.

 

[Papageorgio]

Just remember folks, conservative justices have already decided the case in their head. The only thing to do now is find a way to justify it.

The text of the law is irrelevant.

So they are like liberal judges, that seems logical.

 

[hadit]

The conservative justices don’t deserve our trust. They’re violated it too often.

Hah! It is to chortle politely at your pretense. They deserve the same trust that the recent checkbox hires do. IOW, they're SC Justices, whether you like 'em or not.

Half of your post is gibberish. “Standing”? That makes no sense.

Whatever. He knew that the first thing TRUMP!'s lawyers would probably do was to file the same motion and delay the trial for months. Making sure the case couldn't be dismissed in five minutes on the grounds that they couldn't convict him of whatever they wanted was maybe the smartest thing they have done yet.

 

[Dante]

Read the thread snowflake.

You appear to be confused - again. I'd have that checked out -- soon.

 

[bendog]

BULLSHIT.

Founders Online: Constitutional Convention. Notes Taken in the Federal Conventi …

Constitutional Convention. Notes Taken in the Federal Convention, [1–26 June 1787]

founders.archives.gov

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Constitution of the United States, v. 1, by James Madison.

www.gutenberg.org

The debates weren't recorded BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUCH THING as a tape recorder. I mean deeyam the ignorance. But there are numerous journals, broadsides, and written documentation available to anyone willing to look. The above two a good start.

They are not debates. What we have are the Federalist Papers, which were public opinion arguments written "for or against" provisions in the document, and people's personal recollections. We KNOW there were debates, but we have no idea what was said, because the FOUNDERS WANTED IT THAT WAY.

Americans seeking to understand how the founders developed our Constitutional framework of government have faced a problem deliberately created by the founders, who agreed on a rule of strict secrecy during their deliberations at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Still, several delegates, conscious of the historical significance of the convention—and concerned about how its outcome would be interpreted—did keep private notes during the proceedings.

The Story of the Constitutional Convention: as James Madison Wanted It Told

teachingamericanhistory.org

 

[g5000]

Story just broke.

Supreme Court accepts Jan. 6 case that could affect or delay Trump trial

The challenge involves a law used to charge hundreds in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, and also levied against former president Donald Trump.

webcache.googleusercontent.com

The judges will not be determining Trump's guilt. They will be determining if he is immune from prosecution for acts he committed while President.

In short, they will be deciding if we are no longer a democracy and that presidents enjoy the divine right of kings.

 

[bendog]

Not only is it intellectually bankrupt, it is a total farce. Scalia demonstrated that in spades. There were so many contradictions in his rulings that it makes your head spin.

While Heller stood above them all as a demonstration of just how full of shit originalism is, the reversal of Rowe was beyond the pale.

Read Alito's ruling. Hell, it is comical to anyone with any real knowledge of American History. The "originalism" argument goes back to the middle of the 19th century. It totally ignores the "founders", it totally ignores Colonial America. Back then, abortion was an accepted practice before the quickening. Native Americans, and black slaves, knew of herbs that could be administered to render an abortion. And that was an accepted practice. Even the Puritans engaged in the practice. Hell, the Southern Baptist Convention came out in favor of abortion in the 1970's. Look it up.

But no, Alito goes to the middle of the 19th century and the creation of the AMA. Bans against abortion were merely a tactic used by male doctors to wrestle away control of pregnancies from midwifes, mostly Native Americans and former slaves. And they were successful, to this day, there have been millions of lives lost, both mothers and children, because of it. The United States is the only developed country that does not have a significant midwife program. And we have the highest maternal and infant mortality rate. That is not a coincidence.

Listen to his victory lap speech in Rome.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivers keynote address at 2022 Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit in Rome | The Law School | University of Notre Dame

Established in 1869, Notre Dame Law School is the oldest Catholic law school in the United States. The Law School’s approach to legal education is informed and inspired by faith. Students are trained to view the law as a vocation in service to others, to explore the moral and ethical dimensions...

law.nd.edu

 

[WEATHER53]

Not yet. He's an alleged criminal. What a great distinction. Can you list all the former presidents who have been officially charged with crimes after leaving office?

He is not an alleged criminal
He is facing beliefs that he did something illegal and he does not have to disprove that. In fact, facts will have to be presented and then conclusions made that he did things illegally.
Lib loons present this as all wrapped up and finished. Reality is it’s barely begun

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Just remember folks, conservative justices have already decided the case in their head. The only thing to do now is find a way to justify it.

The text of the law is irrelevant.

Just like the judge in new York decided before any evidence was presented

 

[Winston]

They are not debates. What we have are the Federalist Papers, which were public opinion arguments written "for or against" provisions in the document, and people's personal recollections. We KNOW there were debates, but we have no idea what was said, because the FOUNDERS WANTED IT THAT WAY.

Americans seeking to understand how the founders developed our Constitutional framework of government have faced a problem deliberately created by the founders, who agreed on a rule of strict secrecy during their deliberations at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Still, several delegates, conscious of the historical significance of the convention—and concerned about how its outcome would be interpreted—did keep private notes during the proceedings.

The Story of the Constitutional Convention: as James Madison Wanted It Told

teachingamericanhistory.org

Please, read your own link.

Because of a joint resolution of Congress calling for the records of the convention to be gathered and published, Madison had been asked in 1818 by John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, to turn over his notes. Madison had refused. He said that he did not want them to be used in public debates then ongoing over the powers of the judiciary and whether and how to limit slavery. He told Adams he did not want his account published until after his death.

Adams continued collecting all the information about the convention he could. He acquired the “journal” of the convention—a record kept by William Jackson, who was tasked to keep minutes of those who attended and of votes taken. Adams also acquired the notes of New York delegate Robert Yates and South Carolina delegate Charles Pinckney. He compiled and published these records as the Journal, Acts, and Proceedings of the Convention . . . which Formed the Constitution of the United States in 1819. (Later, in the mid-19th century, historian Jonathan Elliott combined these records, along with various letters commenting on the convention and the records of debates in several state ratifying conventions, and published them in a five-volume set.) When Adams’ compilation was published, Madison of course read through it. He used Jackson’s journal to check his own record of the dates and results of votes taken at the convention. Yates’ notes were incomplete since Yates left the convention in early July. Pinckney’s account appalled Madison. It altered the chronology of decisions, moving discussions that took place after a first draft of the Constitution was written to the discussions of June and early July. Madison wanted to give posterity a truer account.

He left his corrected manuscript to Dolley Madison, hoping she could arrange with Congress to have it printed. Dolley arranged for Madison’s Debates to be published with his other papers. Congress assigned the task to the State Department, where Henry Gilpin took charge, publishing Madison’s papers in 1840.

Although Madison said he did not want his account of the founding to become part of the political controversies of the early 19th century, that is what happened.

 

[Marener]

Just like the judge in new York decided before any evidence was presented

Please try to have the slightest idea what you’re talking about before you post nonsense.

 

[bendog]

Please, read your own link.

Because of a joint resolution of Congress calling for the records of the convention to be gathered and published, Madison had been asked in 1818 by John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, to turn over his notes. Madison had refused. He said that he did not want them to be used in public debates then ongoing over the powers of the judiciary and whether and how to limit slavery. He told Adams he did not want his account published until after his death.

Adams continued collecting all the information about the convention he could. He acquired the “journal” of the convention—a record kept by William Jackson, who was tasked to keep minutes of those who attended and of votes taken. Adams also acquired the notes of New York delegate Robert Yates and South Carolina delegate Charles Pinckney. He compiled and published these records as the Journal, Acts, and Proceedings of the Convention . . . which Formed the Constitution of the United States in 1819. (Later, in the mid-19th century, historian Jonathan Elliott combined these records, along with various letters commenting on the convention and the records of debates in several state ratifying conventions, and published them in a five-volume set.) When Adams’ compilation was published, Madison of course read through it. He used Jackson’s journal to check his own record of the dates and results of votes taken at the convention. Yates’ notes were incomplete since Yates left the convention in early July. Pinckney’s account appalled Madison. It altered the chronology of decisions, moving discussions that took place after a first draft of the Constitution was written to the discussions of June and early July. Madison wanted to give posterity a truer account.

He left his corrected manuscript to Dolley Madison, hoping she could arrange with Congress to have it printed. Dolley arranged for Madison’s Debates to be published with his other papers. Congress assigned the task to the State Department, where Henry Gilpin took charge, publishing Madison’s papers in 1840.

Although Madison said he did not want his account of the founding to become part of the political controversies of the early 19th century, that is what happened.

But they were NOT official records of debates, like the congressional record. Those were intentioally not kept. This is fucking high school civcs shit. adios

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Please try to have the slightest idea what you’re talking about before you post nonsense.

No numbnuts you said the judges already had their minds made up. Just like the judge in new York had his mind made up.

 

[Marener]

No numbnuts you said the judges already had their minds made up. Just like the judge in new York had his mind made up.

After evidence was presented, moron.