Public Trials and Court Expansion After Dems Take Over?

[georgephillip]

I was talking about the stupidity of Democrats trying to prosecute him out contention. All it did was radicalize his support and keep him in the headlines. They failed the first lesson of modern life: don't feed the trolls.

Do you believe Trump deserved prosecution for his assault on E. Jean Carroll and his New York civil fraud case where he was found guilty of inflating assets?

 

[22lcidw]

I think you are underestimating Trump's political stupidity.

So how many people will die for him and die for your commie feminist shrews?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

FDR's "court-packing" relied on mandatory retirement for all justices at age 70.

Sound like a good idea?

FDR announces “court-packing” plan | February 5, 1937 | HISTORY

"During the previous two years, the high court had struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government.

"Flushed with his landslide reelection in 1936, President Roosevelt issued a proposal in February 1937 to provide retirement at full pay for all members of the court over 70.

"If a justice refused to retire, an 'assistant' with full voting rights was to be appointed, thus ensuring Roosevelt a liberal majority.

"Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress opposed the so-called 'court-packing' plan."

No, its just another one of fdr's horrible ideas and policies.

 

[georgephillip]

There will be a day when the blob is just a stain on our past.

History is written by the victors, and it's possible Trump's side will succeed in its attempts at sustaining the US empire through bluff, bluster, and raw naked military power.

In a worst case scenario, nuclear weapons could be used for the first time since 1945 and eliminate any future historians and their opinions of Trump.

 

[dblack]

Do you believe Trump deserved prosecution for his assault on E. Jean Carroll and his New York civil fraud case where he was found guilty of inflating assets?

Probably? But prosecuting him in the leadup to the election was stupid. It only helped him get elected.

Instead, they should have focused on the election first, and prosecuted him afterwards.

 

[georgephillip]

No, its just another one of fdr's horrible ideas and policies.

Like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Probably? But prosecuting him in the leadup to the election was stupid. It only helped him get elected.

Instead, they should have focused on the election first, and prosecuted him afterwards.

The prosecutions were first to help win the election. There would have been no prosecutions if the Dems had won.

 

[dblack]

The prosecutions were first to help win the election. There would have been no prosecutions if the Dems had won.

Maybe not. Either way, prosecuting him before the election was a mistake. It only radicalized his support and caused many independents to see it as persecution, rather that prosecution.

 

[candycorn]

History is written by the victors, and it's possible Trump's side will succeed in its attempts at sustaining the US empire through bluff, bluster, and raw naked military power.

In a worst case scenario, nuclear weapons could be used for the first time since 1945 and eliminate any future historians and their opinions of Trump.

I think you overstate the case drastically but who knows?

 

[Invisibleflash]

What are some possible consequences of a blue tsunami breaking in 2026 and cresting in 2028?

Public trials of prominent conservatives from Elon Musk and "Big Balls" to Trump himself would require at least one precursor.

Packing SCOTUS appears to be the key to perpetuating any radical makeover Democrats might implement:

"It's Going To Get Really Serious": Liberal Influencers Discuss Public Trials, Court Expansion After Democratic Takeover | ZeroHedge

"Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans 'will never win another election.'

"However, he warned that 'the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.' Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.

This week, Democratic strategist James Carville laid out the step-by-step process of how the pack-to-power plan would work.

 

[georgephillip]

Maybe not. Either way, prosecuting him before the election was a mistake. It only radicalized his support and caused many independents to see it as persecution, rather that prosecution.

Given the slow pace that courts work, and Trump's ability to slow down that process, it is hard to find a time to prosecute that doesn't exist before an election.

GoogleAI Overview:

"Following his departure from office in 2021 and leading into his second inauguration in 2025, Donald Trump faced four major criminal prosecutions. As of January 2026, all federal cases have been dismissed, and state cases have either concluded or been significantly delayed.

1. Manhattan "Hush Money" Case (New York State)
"March 2023: Indicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal payments made during the 2016 election."
2. Federal Classified Documents Case

• August 8, 2022: The FBI executes a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, recovering over 100 classified documents.
• June 2023: Special Counsel Jack Smith files a 37-count indictment (later expanded to 40 counts) for willful retention of national defense information and obstruction of justice.
• 3. Federal Election Interference Case
  • August 1, 2023: Trump is indicted on four felony counts related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the January 6 Capitol attack.
  • 4. Georgia Election Interference Case (State)
    • August 14, 2023: Indicted alongside 18 co-defendants on racketeering (RICO) and conspiracy charges for attempts to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results.
    • 2024: The case is stalled by legal challenges, including a motion to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis."

 

[georgephillip]

View attachment 1210255

 

[dblack]

Given the slow pace that courts work, and Trump's ability to slow down that process, it is hard to find a time to prosecute that doesn't exist before an election.

Then they shouldn't have bothered. It was obviously a mistake.

I don't usually read AI blurbs.

 

[kyzr]

Do you believe Trump deserved prosecution for his assault on E. Jean Carroll and his New York civil fraud case where he was found guilty of inflating assets?

The short answer is "no".
1. He couldn't finger **** EJC in a crowded NYC department store without her screaming for help.
2. The phony "fraud" case where no one lost any money is ridiculous. Fraud by definition requires a victim.

Turley hails Trump’s 'tremendous victory' after civil fraud penalty tossed, blasts 'grotesque' use of NY law

Appeals court tosses out Trump's massive civil fraud fine brought by Attorney General Letitia James, ending what legal expert calls a "grotesque" use of New York law.

www.foxnews.com

 

[georgephillip]

Then they shouldn't have bothered. It was obviously a mistake.

I don't usually read AI blurbs.

Why don't you usually read AI blurbs?

 

[Lockback]

I think you are underestimating Trump's political stupidity.

What an absurd premise.

 

[Lockback]

The short answer is "no".
1. He couldn't finger **** EJC in a crowded NYC department store without her screaming for help.
2. The phony "fraud" case where no one lost any money is ridiculous. Fraud by definition requires a victim.

Turley hails Trump’s 'tremendous victory' after civil fraud penalty tossed, blasts 'grotesque' use of NY law

Appeals court tosses out Trump's massive civil fraud fine brought by Attorney General Letitia James, ending what legal expert calls a "grotesque" use of New York law.

www.foxnews.com

Spot on.
These cases were absurd and should never have survived the light of day. But because it's Trump they festered and actually almost took on an air of credibility.
But in the end, they were simply farts in a windstorm, blown away by facts and reality.

 

[georgephillip]

The short answer is "no".
1. He couldn't finger **** EJC in a crowded NYC department store without her screaming for help.
2. The phony "fraud" case where no one lost any money is ridiculous. Fraud by definition requires a victim.

Turley hails Trump’s 'tremendous victory' after civil fraud penalty tossed, blasts 'grotesque' use of NY law

Appeals court tosses out Trump's massive civil fraud fine brought by Attorney General Letitia James, ending what legal expert calls a "grotesque" use of New York law.

www.foxnews.com

When's the last time you were in "a crowded NYC department store?"

• "The Encounter: Carroll and Trump ran into each other by chance in the store. After a period of 'playful banter,' Trump asked Carroll to help him choose a gift for a woman and eventually suggested she try on a sheer bodysuit.
• The Attack: Inside a dressing room in the lingerie department, Trump slammed the door, pinned Carroll against the wall, and forcibly kissed her. He then pulled down her tights and forcibly penetrated her with his fingers.
• Escape: Carroll testified that she escaped after a struggle that lasted several minutes by kneeing him and running out of the store."

GoogleAI Overview

"Since the 1970s, at least 28 women have accused Donald Trump of various acts of sexual misconduct, including rape, and kissing and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants.

"Trump has denied all of the allegations. He has a history of insulting and belittling women when speaking to the media and on social media, and has made lewd comments about women, disparaged their physical appearance, and referred to them using derogatory epithets."

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia

 

[skews13]

It's odd that something that important can be passed by a simple majority in both houses if the filibuster is nuked.

Which can be a very good thing depending on which side you find yourself on.

The overwhelming majority of Americans support abortion rights, gun laws, voting rights, the social safety net, anti trust laws on businesses, wealth taxes on corporations and the morbidly rich, renewable energy and global warming initiatives.

And that's just a short list.

Which means Democrats running on those things listed will find success, and Republicans that continue running against them won't.

Getting rid of the filibuster isn't scary to Liberals at all.

 

[Lockback]

Which can be a very good thing depending on which side you find yourself on.

The overwhelming majority of Americans support abortion rights, gun laws, voting rights, the social safety net, anti trust laws on businesses, wealth taxes on corporations and the morbidly rich, renewable energy and global warming initiatives.

And that's just a short list.

Which means Democrats running on those things listed will find success, and Republicans that continue running against them won't.

Getting rid of the filibuster isn't scary to Liberals at all.

And gun control laws and virtually everything else you mentioned are stupid and wrong and ill-informed and will lead to the further disintigration of America.