SCOTUS will hear Trump's IMMUNITY claim over criminal election interference charges

[Lesh]

Well, in order for any of this to approach reality, they have to be true. One, I've explicitly said repeatedly that it is legal to expand the court. It's also wrong-headed, democrat party level stupid, and would rebound immediately to the democrats' detriment, but it's legal.

Which laws or rules were broken that you think were, and why did you not send your information to the proper authorities?

I'm sure you enjoy your imagination quite a lot, but you have yet to even attempt explaining how Quid Pro cravenly expanding the court solely to get the rulings he wants in any way equates to TRUMP! duly replacing Justices lost to death, with the advice and consent of the Senate. And yes, I am enjoying watching you try to come up with some plausible excuse to think such democrat-level stupid things. Name the rule and/or the law that was broken.

What McConnell did was legal but unethical and hypocritical

Were Biden to expand the Court it would also be legal.

You can characterize it any way you want as long as your don’t say it’s illegal

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, in order for any of this to approach reality, they have to be true. One, I've explicitly said repeatedly that it is legal to expand the court. It's also wrong-headed, democrat party level stupid, and would rebound immediately to the democrats' detriment, but it's legal.

Which laws or rules were broken that you think were, and why did you not send your information to the proper authorities?

I'm sure you enjoy your imagination quite a lot, but you have yet to even attempt explaining how Quid Pro cravenly expanding the court solely to get the rulings he wants in any way equates to TRUMP! duly replacing Justices lost to death, with the advice and consent of the Senate. And yes, I am enjoying watching you try to come up with some plausible excuse to think such democrat-level stupid things. Name the rule and/or the law that was broken.

What you have done repeatedly >s admonish people for complaining about what Turltr and Orange turd did, saying it wasn't against the rules.

Then turn around and bitch about expanding the court. Also not against the rules.

And I enjoyed all of it. Thanks for being you. My points are always a bit stronger, when I have a volunteer assistant to demonstrate them.

 

[pknopp]

Well of course not. He and his nepo babies were using personal email servers and unsecured cell phones.

Also, I don't think the president quite has the power to order prosecutions that you think he has. Prosecutions don't work that way. You don't get to prosecute someone just because you feel like it.

It wouldn't have been hard to find something legit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It wouldn't have been hard to find something legit.

They went after her for 25 years. Seems like it was pretty hard to find something legit.

 

[pknopp]

They went after her for 25 years. Seems like it was pretty hard to find something legit.

It was noted that what she did would have been a crime if it had been anyone else.

Hillary shouldn't have been above the law any more than Trump.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It was noted that what she did would have been a crime if it had been anyone else.

A misrepresentation.

In reality, the special.counsel came out and said no prosecutor would bring a case against her, based on the merits.

And then that proved true, when Trump begged his DOJ to go after her. They told him to go diddle himself.

 

[hadit]

What you have done repeatedly >s admonish people for complaining about what Turltr and Orange turd did, saying it wasn't against the rules.

Then turn around and bitch about expanding the court. Also not against the rules.

And I enjoyed all of it. Thanks for being you. My points are always a bit stronger, when I have a volunteer assistant to demonstrate them.

Nice that you admit that no one has yet broken any rules or laws in appointing Justices to the Court.

One big difference, however, that you apparently have missed. TRUMP! simply took advantage of precedent and appointed Justices to replace those who left office, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Are we clear thus far? What you are proposing and advocating is akin to Quid Pro Joe coming to a football game, realizing that the referees were not going to allow his team to jump offside on every play, and simply adding more handpicked referees until he could do so. IOW, quite a different animal.

I get it, you're PO'd because TRUMP! got a chance to put some right-leaning, aka, Constitutionalist Justices on the Court, and replaced a leftwing firebrand. You didn't like that and want Quid Pro to single-handedly dictate the makeup of the Court. What you also apparently fail to realize is, if he managed to do that (not a sure thing as the Senate would still have to approve) the very next Republican president with a friendly Senate would do the same thing and eventually we'd see every new president appointing more Justices, and you'd be wondering why no one cared what the Court ruled anymore.

 

[hadit]

What McConnell did was legal but unethical and hypocritical

Were Biden to expand the Court it would also be legal.

You can characterize it any way you want as long as your don’t say it’s illegal

I have never said it was illegal. The Constitution doesn't specify how many Justices should be on the Court, but the last time a president tried to expand the Court so he could pack it, he got slapped down, as he should have been. The same should happen now, should it occur to Quid Pro to try.

 

[Lesh]

I have never said it was illegal. The Constitution doesn't specify how many Justices should be on the Court, but the last time a president tried to expand the Court so he could pack it, he got slapped down, as he should have been. The same should happen now, should it occur to Quid Pro to try.

Republicans (lead by McConnell) played with the rules to stack the Court .

Biden should do the same.

 

[hadit]

Republicans (lead by McConnell) played with the rules to stack the Court .

Biden should do the same.

And if Justices either retire or die in office, he can add his own, assuming the Senate agrees with him. Just adding more, however, because he doesn't like the makeup of the current Court is not defensible. Remember, TRUMP! would not have had the opportunity to place anyone on the court had they not first vacated their offices. He did not do what some idiots are saying Quid Pro should do, which is to just keep adding Justices until he gets the rulings he wants.

 

[Lesh]

And if Justices either retire or die in office, he can add his own, assuming the Senate agrees with him. Just adding more, however, because he doesn't like the makeup of the current Court is not defensible. Remember, TRUMP! would not have had the opportunity to place anyone on the court had they not first vacated their offices. He did not do what some idiots are saying Quid Pro should do, which is to just keep adding Justices until he gets the rulings he wants.

Not defensible? Because you don’t like it?

McConnell played fast and loose with the rules to appoint TWO. Of the nine Justices.

That was the direct cause of Roe being overturned

Was THAT defensible?

 

[pknopp]

Republicans (lead by McConnell) played with the rules to stack the Court .

Biden should do the same.

Obama did nothing to fight for a justice. He believed he was all above that and the Democrats made the fatal mistake in believing Hillary had the election won.

 

[hadit]

Not defensible? Because you don’t like it?

McConnell played fast and loose with the rules to appoint TWO. Of the nine Justices.

That was the direct cause of Roe being overturned

Was THAT defensible?

Of course, because they wouldn't have had the opportunity to place those Justices had not the vacancies opened up first, then the Senate had to approve the picks. If Quid Pro gets those same opportunities, I would expect him to take them. It would not, however, be defensible for him to simply add more Justices just so he could get rulings he liked. That would destroy the credibility of the Court and make it nothing more than another arm of the democrat party.

Now, I would like to know what rules did McConnel abuse?

 

[Lesh]

Of course, because they wouldn't have had the opportunity to place those Justices had not the vacancies opened up first, then the Senate had to approve the picks. If Quid Pro gets those same opportunities, I would expect him to take them. It would not, however, be defensible for him to simply add more Justices just so he could get rulings he liked. That would destroy the credibility of the Court and make it nothing more than another arm of the democrat party.

Now, I would like to know what rules did McConnel abuse?

You only say that because it benefits your partisan beliefs

 

[Lesh]

Of course, because they wouldn't have had the opportunity to place those Justices had not the vacancies opened up first, then the Senate had to approve the picks. If Quid Pro gets those same opportunities, I would expect him to take them. It would not, however, be defensible for him to simply add more Justices just so he could get rulings he liked. That would destroy the credibility of the Court and make it nothing more than another arm of the democrat party.

Now, I would like to know what rules did McConnel abuse?

What did McConnell abuse?

Advise and consent.

He refused to even consider a vote on Obama’s nominee for the Court because it was supposedly too late in an election year.(it was 10 months out)
He then nuked the filibuster

He then reversed himself and slammed through the Barrett nomination just weeks before the 2020 election

 

[CrusaderFrank]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity over criminal election interference charges, adding a new hurdle to a trial taking place.

The court in a brief order said it would hear arguments and issue a ruling on the immunity claim. In the meantime, the case is on hold, meaning no trial can take place.

The order said the court would hear the case the week of April 22.

The case could take months to resolve.

Even if Trump loses, the trial would not take place until well into election season. If Trump were to win in a ruling, the charges would be dismissed.

More at the link below...

Supreme Court to consider Trump immunity claim in further delay of election interference trial

Even if the justices ultimately rule against Trump, the court’s intervention puts the trial’s start date in question.

www.nbcnews.com

This should be a no-brainer - but we'll see. Another stalling tactic for Trump. What do you think?

Obama should be charged with Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi murder by drone strike, right?

 

[hadit]

What did McConnell abuse?

Advise and consent.

He refused to even consider a vote on Obama’s nominee for the Court because it was supposedly too late in an election year.(it was 10 months out)

Yeah, a dick move. I said so at the time, they should have held the vote and returned a big, fat "NO!". Still within his authority to do, though, and we're glad he did, based on the subsequent performance of the reject.

He then nuked the filibuster

Which was the inevitable backlash I predicted from Reid's nuking of the filibuster shortly before. This is politics, and democrats routinely do things for short term gains, then act totally flummoxed when said actions rebound negatively. This is one case where it was easy to predict, and you fell for it, pretending it was done in a vacuum.

He then reversed himself and slammed through the Barrett nomination just weeks before the 2020 election

Yup, they saw an opportunity and took it. I see you're still bitter about it. Heck, the rule that you're upset about came originally from Quid Pro himself, way back in the day. I'm sure you'd like him to not be a hypocrite should a Justice die in office between now and election day and not try to replace them. I mean, since you're all upset and stuff about hypocrisy.

 

[hadit]

You only say that because it benefits your partisan beliefs

No, I don't want the Court to be turned into a play toy, messed with when a democrat president doesn't get the rulings he wants. It would totally destroy the legitimacy of the Court, and every time they ruled in favor of what democrats wanted, the reaction from the people would be, "Yeah, right, like we're going to pay any attention to that".

 

[Lesh]

No, I don't want the Court to be turned into a play toy, messed with when a democrat president doesn't get the rulings he wants. It would totally destroy the legitimacy of the Court, and every time they ruled in favor of what democrats wanted, the reaction from the people would be, "Yeah, right, like we're going to pay any attention to that".

Sure buddy

You had no problem with what McConnell and Trump did though

 

[hadit]

Sure buddy

You had no problem with what McConnell and Trump did though

And I wouldn't have a problem if Quid Pro had the chance to do what they did. I've said that. What I don't want is for the Court to become a democrat play toy, nothing more than another arm of the democrat party through adding more Justices until they get what they want. Replace dead Justices, yup. Replace retired Justices, yup.

You obviously have a problem with TRUMP! replacing ANY Justices, especially a liberal firebrand, and you'd REALLY freak out if he got to replace some more in the next 4 years.