What does the sentencing ruling say about trump's SC?

[berg80]

A Rebuke to Trump Provides a Telling Portrait of a Divided Supreme Court​

A Rebuke to Trump Provides a Telling Portrait of a Divided Supreme Court

Two Republican appointees, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, joined the court’s three liberals in ordering the president-elect to face sentencing on Friday.

www.nytimes.com

First and foremost it says trump has four conservative justices who are willing to rule in his favor no matter what. They're all in for trumpery, legality be damned. To paraphrase what Judge Richard Posner once said, those justices make up their minds based on politics and then proceed to find a legal rationale to support their decision.

It says once in a while John Roberts shows concern about the already damaged legacy of the Court that bares his name. But not often enough. He will forever by remembered as the justice who authored the extra constitutional presidential immunity ruling based solely on partisan politics.

It also says Amy Barrett is not always a reliable vote as part of the right wing extremist's block.

She wrote a notable dissent, joined by liberal justices, from a decision limiting the tools prosecutors can use in cases against members of the Jan. 6 mob. And she voted with the court’s three-member liberal wing in March, saying the majority had ruled too broadly in restoring former President Donald J. Trump to the Colorado ballot.

As gratifying as it is to know trump will be sworn in with a label he so richly deserves, convicted felon, the toothless sentencing shows once again how the system has contorted itself to compromise the way in which it holds him responsible for his many crimes. Most of which his use of lawfare has rendered moot.

 

[kyzr]

The USSC decided that Trump's "Lawfare" case should go thru the appeal process instead of them using the weak immunity claim.

They know that those 34 "Lawfare" felonies stand no chance of making it thru the appeal process.

If jail time and a constitutional crisis was at stake, they might have dismissed the felonies now.

p.s. berg, regarding the Robert's court:
its "bears his name, not bares his name"

 

[EMH]

A Rebuke to Trump Provides a Telling Portrait of a Divided Supreme Court​

A Rebuke to Trump Provides a Telling Portrait of a Divided Supreme Court

Two Republican appointees, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, joined the court’s three liberals in ordering the president-elect to face sentencing on Friday.

www.nytimes.com

First and foremost it says trump has four conservative justices who are willing to rule in his favor no matter what. They're all in for trumpery, legality be damned. To paraphrase what Judge Richard Posner once said, those justices make up their minds based on politics and then proceed to find a legal rationale to support their decision.

It says once in a while John Roberts shows concern about the already damaged legacy of the Court that bares his name. But not often enough. He will forever by remembered as the justice who authored the extra constitutional presidential immunity ruling based solely on partisan politics.

It also says Amy Barrett is not always a reliable vote as part of the right wing extremist's block.

She wrote a notable dissent, joined by liberal justices, from a decision limiting the tools prosecutors can use in cases against members of the Jan. 6 mob. And she voted with the court’s three-member liberal wing in March, saying the majority had ruled too broadly in restoring former President Donald J. Trump to the Colorado ballot.

As gratifying as it is to know trump will be sworn in with a label he so richly deserves, convicted felon, the toothless sentencing shows once again how the system has contorted itself to compromise the way in which it holds him responsible for his many crimes. Most of which his use of lawfare has rendered moot.

From a supporter of W and Traitor Joe, calling someone else a "felon" is like Jeffery Dahmer calling someone else "violent."

 

[EMH]

its "bears his name, not bares his name"

That oh so highly imperfect

HEBREW TO ENGLISH TRANSLATION SOFTWARE issue

 

[kyzr]

That oh so highly imperfect

HEBREW TO ENGLISH TRANSLATION SOFTWARE issue

berg is Hebrew??? since when?

 

[EMH]

berg is Hebrew??? since when?

From Google...


Yes, the surname Berg is a Jewish name of Ashkenazic origin.

 

[hadit]

A Rebuke to Trump Provides a Telling Portrait of a Divided Supreme Court​

A Rebuke to Trump Provides a Telling Portrait of a Divided Supreme Court

Two Republican appointees, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, joined the court’s three liberals in ordering the president-elect to face sentencing on Friday.

www.nytimes.com

First and foremost it says trump has four conservative justices who are willing to rule in his favor no matter what. They're all in for trumpery, legality be damned. To paraphrase what Judge Richard Posner once said, those justices make up their minds based on politics and then proceed to find a legal rationale to support their decision.

It says once in a while John Roberts shows concern about the already damaged legacy of the Court that bares his name. But not often enough. He will forever by remembered as the justice who authored the extra constitutional presidential immunity ruling based solely on partisan politics.

It also says Amy Barrett is not always a reliable vote as part of the right wing extremist's block.

She wrote a notable dissent, joined by liberal justices, from a decision limiting the tools prosecutors can use in cases against members of the Jan. 6 mob. And she voted with the court’s three-member liberal wing in March, saying the majority had ruled too broadly in restoring former President Donald J. Trump to the Colorado ballot.

As gratifying as it is to know trump will be sworn in with a label he so richly deserves, convicted felon, the toothless sentencing shows once again how the system has contorted itself to compromise the way in which it holds him responsible for his many crimes. Most of which his use of lawfare has rendered moot.

Quite simply, it shows that his picks for the court are true jurists who make up their minds independently. It is quite obvious that you have a pre-determined outcome in mind and any justice (who knows the law far better than you do) who disagrees with you is wrong.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

A Rebuke to Trump Provides a Telling Portrait of a Divided Supreme Court​

A Rebuke to Trump Provides a Telling Portrait of a Divided Supreme Court

Two Republican appointees, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, joined the court’s three liberals in ordering the president-elect to face sentencing on Friday.

www.nytimes.com

First and foremost it says trump has four conservative justices who are willing to rule in his favor no matter what. They're all in for trumpery, legality be damned. To paraphrase what Judge Richard Posner once said, those justices make up their minds based on politics and then proceed to find a legal rationale to support their decision.

It says once in a while John Roberts shows concern about the already damaged legacy of the Court that bares his name. But not often enough. He will forever by remembered as the justice who authored the extra constitutional presidential immunity ruling based solely on partisan politics.

It also says Amy Barrett is not always a reliable vote as part of the right wing extremist's block.

She wrote a notable dissent, joined by liberal justices, from a decision limiting the tools prosecutors can use in cases against members of the Jan. 6 mob. And she voted with the court’s three-member liberal wing in March, saying the majority had ruled too broadly in restoring former President Donald J. Trump to the Colorado ballot.

As gratifying as it is to know trump will be sworn in with a label he so richly deserves, convicted felon, the toothless sentencing shows once again how the system has contorted itself to compromise the way in which it holds him responsible for his many crimes. Most of which his use of lawfare has rendered moot.

Charges brought by a bunch of ravenous dems who seethe with hatred. Yeah, your conviction means absolutely nothing.

 

[berg80]

The USSC decided that Trump's "Lawfare" case should go thru the appeal process instead of them using the weak immunity claim.

The four conservatives in Dotard's back pocket were prepared to use the "weak immunity claim" to protect their Dear Leader. That's a foreshadowing of what is to come.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The USSC decided that Trump's "Lawfare" case should go thru the appeal process instead of them using the weak immunity claim.

They know that those 34 "Lawfare" felonies stand no chance of making it thru the appeal process.

If jail time and a constitutional crisis was at stake, they might have dismissed the felonies now.

p.s. berg, regarding the Robert's court:
its "bears his name, not bares his name"

/—-/ There’s a catch. If Merchan reneges on his promise and sends Trump to jail, the USSC may step in after all.
“Nevertheless, the Supreme Court majority’s conclusion that the sentencing poses minimal burden on Trump’s presidential transition hinges on Merchan’s assurance that he was leaning toward a no-jail, no-probation sentence. If Merchan were to change his mind at this point and impose a term of incarceration, the High Court would regard it as a betrayal. Practically speaking, then, Merchan has no choice but to do what he indicated he would do.
ANDREW McCARTHY: Supreme Court allows Trump to be tainted as a felon. But there's a catch
ANDREW McCARTHY: Supreme Court allows Trump to be tainted as a felon. But there's a catch

 

[berg80]

Charges brought by a bunch of ravenous dems who seethe with hatred. Yeah, your conviction means absolutely nothing.

It means trump will be the Felon-in-Chief. It means you voted for a convicted felon.

It's not my or the Dem's conviction, it's the jury's conviction.

 

[berg80]

/—-/ There’s a catch. If Merchan reneges on his promise and sends Trump to jail, the USSC may step in after all.
“Nevertheless, the Supreme Court majority’s conclusion that the sentencing poses minimal burden on Trump’s presidential transition hinges on Merchan’s assurance that he was leaning toward a no-jail, no-probation sentence. If Merchan were to change his mind at this point and impose a term of incarceration, the High Court would regard it as a betrayal. Practically speaking, then, Merchan has no choice but to do what he indicated he would do.
ANDREW McCARTHY: Supreme Court allows Trump to be tainted as a felon. But there's a catch
ANDREW McCARTHY: Supreme Court allows Trump to be tainted as a felon. But there's a catch

Merchan realized incarceration, though deserved, wasn't going to happen by virtue of presidential protections. Most of all he wanted to honor the jury verdict.

 

[berg80]

Quite simply, it shows that his picks for the court are true jurists who make up their minds independently.

 

[Cellblock2429]

It means trump will be the Felon-in-Chief. It means you voted for a convicted felon.

It's not my or the Dem's conviction, it's the jury's conviction.

/—-/ “It means you voted for a convicted felon.”
He wasn’t a convicted felon when we voted for him, even still it wouldn’t matter.

 

[WorldWatcher]

/—-/ “It means you voted for a convicted felon.”
He wasn’t a convicted felon when we voted for him, even still it wouldn’t matter.

A jury voting to convict is a convicted felon. It's just the Judge confirming the prior jury verdict today.

That's like saying a man forcefully sticking his fingers in a woman vagina isn't "rape" in the common usage of the term by the public.

LOL

WW

 

[berg80]

He wasn’t a convicted felon when we voted for him

The jury had found him guilty based on the evidence.

 

[DGS49]

This was not really a choose call. It is premature for a SC hearing. I suspect the Conservatives wanted to give it a go because if it goes through the courts it may never come up again (Trump, if still kicking, would be at least ninety), and this case truly deserves to be shoved right up the prosecutor's and judge's asses.

 

[berg80]

In the decision granting Mr. Trump substantial immunity from prosecution, Justice Barrett wrote a concurring opinion proposing a different framework from the one Chief Justice Roberts set out in the majority opinion. She said Mr. Trump’s efforts to organize alternative slates of electors were “not entitled to protection” and added that she agreed with the dissent about how evidence may be used in the case.

Amy recognized the fake elector scheme was illegal. Which is why her conservative colleagues gave trump immunity.

 

[hadit]

In the decision granting Mr. Trump substantial immunity from prosecution, Justice Barrett wrote a concurring opinion proposing a different framework from the one Chief Justice Roberts set out in the majority opinion. She said Mr. Trump’s efforts to organize alternative slates of electors were “not entitled to protection” and added that she agreed with the dissent about how evidence may be used in the case.

Amy recognized the fake elector scheme was illegal. Which is why her conservative colleagues gave trump immunity.

I didn't see you in the meeting. Were you hiding in the corner again?

 

[berg80]

and this case truly deserves to be shoved right up the prosecutor's and judge's asses.

As it turns out it was shoved up Dotard's and his attorney's asses. His lead counsel's rationale being so weak he could get a majority of radical conservatives to rule in his favor. That guy is going to be the next Deputy AG as a reward for representing trump............poorly.