Just this morning it occurred to me that I could not have imagined the Court ruling against free speech / for govt. censorship by proxy in Missouri v. Biden (or whatever it's now called.)
Similarly, I cannot imagine the Court ruling against Presidential immunity.
Gives me chills to think about that confluence of my own lack of imagination. Maybe it does you, too.
Me and some aware friends were saying this re dangers of the bioweapons that we never trusted as a legitimate vaxx -if there was ever such thing!-. "For the first time in my life I hope I am wrong!"
Thank you for the link! The entire ruling is linked in the article. Down goes the case to Judge Chutkan again. BOUNCE! Let's see how far that bouncing up and down lasts. Pretty good odds, it wouldn't be over before November, or even next January.
AND now, Trump has, through his challenges, courage, choices and actions, forced another ''precedential'' ruling which can be used (once it's fleshed out in the courts as to what is core, official and unofficial immunity) to address and adjudicate the actions of any other current or future FPOTUS ("Former President of the United States," as they like to call Trump).
Youre comment made me realize that PDJT has done for this country in the last three years what he may not have been able to do with a consecutive 2nd term
The ruling pretty clearly stated that bribery is "unofficial" and can be prosecuted. (With some dissent over what the limits are on evidence that can be used in the prosecution as to official acts done in exchange for the bribe.)
The lower courts will still have the say so on what constitutes "official acts" - but that leaves the door open to examine what the current pr*ck and his minions have been doing while in office once they've been shown the door.
Thomas' concurring opinion is also interesting; he spends a while talking about how the Special Counsel appears to not be a valid office created by Congress, and therefore the entire prosecution may be null and void. Seems like there's a good chance this will be one of the next objections to be appealed if the lower courts continue to allow the prosecution.
It's a more nuanced ruling than what you are suggesting. They definitely made distinctions about absolute v. presumptive immunity and separating "official acts" from "unofficial acts." It is those questions that have to be evaluated by the lower courts. SCOTUS definitely seemed peeved to have had to review this case at all saying the lower courts didn't do their job correctly. Take that for what it's worth.
besides, when has this administration (that keeps claiming that another term for Trump will spell then end of democracy here) do what the law requires, or even what the Supreme Court decides?
Sorry all, I thought William's comment was referring to the immunity ruling but Willing might be right and that he is talking about the Missouri v. Murthy/Biden ruling.
But it's my understanding, from Jeff Childers, that the Court did NOT so rule ~ that what the Court DID rule was that the plaintiffs before it in the instant case lacked the requisite STANDING to present that issue to the Court for adjudication ... ?? The point being: NO ruling on the merits of the case has been handed down.
Right, the very fact of ruling that they "lack standing" means that there's a precedent that you can't sue over "one-step-removed" censorship due to lack of standing. Although, it would be quite possible that in future in a less politically-heated climate, SCOTUS might "differentiate" other cases sufficiently as to make this precedent effectively inapplicable to any other case in future.
(Example: "well, the problem was that this case had SO much evidence and the plaintiffs just didn't quite point clearly enough at SPECIFIC acts by the government, but that was highly unusual, and all these other cases have slightly less broad swath of evidence / the plaintiffs were slightly more specific in their claims, therefore they DO have standing")
(Edit: yes it's still a weasel move, but I can't entirely blame the majority for misplacing their dangly bits in the face of loud and repeated calls to pack the court or otherwise neuter SCOTUS' power.)
I think the lefties on the Court might be justly worried about the consequences to Biden of a decision that goes too far on allowing prosecution/persecution of Presidents, esp. given recent polling (the debate came sadly too late to be likely to have changed a vote, or even the content of an opinion) and President Trump's use of the word 'retribution.'
Absolutely. The TV pundits are calling this a major victory for Trump. Well, given everything Biden has done, I think it's an even bigger victory for him!
It could be viewed that way. But that’s a dangerous road to go down. I think this is a necessary major victory for the nation. And the ruling should never have been required.
Presidential crimes need to be dealt with through impeachment. That’s the provided methodology.
Our Checks and Balances need serious reform and repair. And the intelligence agencies need to be dissolved.
Calling it now: if republicans have balls, the next SCOTUS challenge will be over whether they can impeach Biden post-term so as to render him liable to prosecution.
Not necessarily - he too is immune for any "official acts", but at least in theory open to bribery prosecution, or anything else that can be argued to be "unofficial".
It does mean that Biden can't be criminally charged for "conspiracy to undermine the government" or something, on the basis of making terrible policy decisions.
I have a high opinion of the current court. We do not need a right leaning court and heaven knows we do not need a left leaning court. We need one that strictly interprets the law of the CONSTITUTION. We desperately need a CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. Given the wavey pattern of the decisions coming out this session, I think these nine (of a majority of the nine) are doing their best to stay to the constitution. I don’t “trust” them, they are humans and clearly have the capacity to make mistakes but I have hope their decisions will be well reasoned and not activist in nature as we’ve seen in the past
They truly seem to be 3-3-3. The middle 3 have been swing voters on many surprising issues. And 2 of them are Trump appointees! (Commie Barrett, Beer Kavanaugh, and then Pretty Boy Roberts)
I no longer trust the SCOTUS. This would seem a very slippery slope. This one requires massive prayer. Will the Supremes follow the Constitution?
🙏
''Humanity is about to be tested....... mayankjeptha.substack.com/p/qbpe
The corruption runs too deep at this point - hope is not a strategy we can afford to take at this moment in time.
But HOPE is the needed balast! It's not all we have...but we won't stay upright without it.
Leading us is "intent" and "determination."
Keeping us moving ahead is "mindfulness" of who we were as a nation... and who we want to be again!
But HOPE is crucial.
DJT is not crucial
No HUMAN is crucial!
But DJT is our best chance at this stage of the game to regain what was lost since 2020.
So deep, it goes all the way to China.
Just this morning it occurred to me that I could not have imagined the Court ruling against free speech / for govt. censorship by proxy in Missouri v. Biden (or whatever it's now called.)
Similarly, I cannot imagine the Court ruling against Presidential immunity.
Gives me chills to think about that confluence of my own lack of imagination. Maybe it does you, too.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/breaking-supreme-court-issues-ruling-presidential-immunity-court/
Never been so happy to be wrong.
As I recall in Mo v Biden, the court simply ruled that Mo didn’t have specific standing to sue and sent it back down. But I have been wrong before.
Alex Berenson has standing. And he is getting closer and closer to the Supreme Court.
No, you're correct David, that they rejected it on standing which is the all-purpose excuse and the Supremes equivalent of "the check is in the mail."
Me and some aware friends were saying this re dangers of the bioweapons that we never trusted as a legitimate vaxx -if there was ever such thing!-. "For the first time in my life I hope I am wrong!"
❤️❤️❤️
Thank you for the link! The entire ruling is linked in the article. Down goes the case to Judge Chutkan again. BOUNCE! Let's see how far that bouncing up and down lasts. Pretty good odds, it wouldn't be over before November, or even next January.
AND now, Trump has, through his challenges, courage, choices and actions, forced another ''precedential'' ruling which can be used (once it's fleshed out in the courts as to what is core, official and unofficial immunity) to address and adjudicate the actions of any other current or future FPOTUS ("Former President of the United States," as they like to call Trump).
Youre comment made me realize that PDJT has done for this country in the last three years what he may not have been able to do with a consecutive 2nd term
AND ultimately, it's what GOD has done through PDJT and these circumstances, in my view.
Some believe he planned it that way, or his higher power did!
And and and: is bribery an official or an unofficial act? How about being the leader of a RICO situation? Here's looking at you Robert Peters.
The ruling pretty clearly stated that bribery is "unofficial" and can be prosecuted. (With some dissent over what the limits are on evidence that can be used in the prosecution as to official acts done in exchange for the bribe.)
Yes, official vs unofficial is the sticky wicket. How Chutkan parses the two will indeed force a ruling for the ages. This is far from over.
The lower courts will still have the say so on what constitutes "official acts" - but that leaves the door open to examine what the current pr*ck and his minions have been doing while in office once they've been shown the door.
And if they parse badly, it will be appealed, each aspect at a time, in all likelihood. It could take a while...
Thank God!!!
Thomas' concurring opinion is also interesting; he spends a while talking about how the Special Counsel appears to not be a valid office created by Congress, and therefore the entire prosecution may be null and void. Seems like there's a good chance this will be one of the next objections to be appealed if the lower courts continue to allow the prosecution.
Thank you for sharing. I couldnt wait all day to hear from Jeff. Thanks again.
though I will want to read his opinion on this
they didn't rule against it - just punted till later
It's a more nuanced ruling than what you are suggesting. They definitely made distinctions about absolute v. presumptive immunity and separating "official acts" from "unofficial acts." It is those questions that have to be evaluated by the lower courts. SCOTUS definitely seemed peeved to have had to review this case at all saying the lower courts didn't do their job correctly. Take that for what it's worth.
right the actual decision was much better than I expected
besides, when has this administration (that keeps claiming that another term for Trump will spell then end of democracy here) do what the law requires, or even what the Supreme Court decides?
Sorry all, I thought William's comment was referring to the immunity ruling but Willing might be right and that he is talking about the Missouri v. Murthy/Biden ruling.
I think you’re talking about the Free Speech ruling?
N*gga, PLEASE!
Lol.
But it's my understanding, from Jeff Childers, that the Court did NOT so rule ~ that what the Court DID rule was that the plaintiffs before it in the instant case lacked the requisite STANDING to present that issue to the Court for adjudication ... ?? The point being: NO ruling on the merits of the case has been handed down.
But they so very obviously had standing and damages. Alito in his dissent tore the majority a new one.
They definitely punted, too cowardly to make too many rulings against the D power brokers in one session.
Right, the very fact of ruling that they "lack standing" means that there's a precedent that you can't sue over "one-step-removed" censorship due to lack of standing. Although, it would be quite possible that in future in a less politically-heated climate, SCOTUS might "differentiate" other cases sufficiently as to make this precedent effectively inapplicable to any other case in future.
(Example: "well, the problem was that this case had SO much evidence and the plaintiffs just didn't quite point clearly enough at SPECIFIC acts by the government, but that was highly unusual, and all these other cases have slightly less broad swath of evidence / the plaintiffs were slightly more specific in their claims, therefore they DO have standing")
(Edit: yes it's still a weasel move, but I can't entirely blame the majority for misplacing their dangly bits in the face of loud and repeated calls to pack the court or otherwise neuter SCOTUS' power.)
EXACTLY
Best commentary so far!! Thank you 😊
I think the lefties on the Court might be justly worried about the consequences to Biden of a decision that goes too far on allowing prosecution/persecution of Presidents, esp. given recent polling (the debate came sadly too late to be likely to have changed a vote, or even the content of an opinion) and President Trump's use of the word 'retribution.'
Absolutely. The TV pundits are calling this a major victory for Trump. Well, given everything Biden has done, I think it's an even bigger victory for him!
It could be viewed that way. But that’s a dangerous road to go down. I think this is a necessary major victory for the nation. And the ruling should never have been required.
Presidential crimes need to be dealt with through impeachment. That’s the provided methodology.
Our Checks and Balances need serious reform and repair. And the intelligence agencies need to be dissolved.
How about AOC wanting to impeach the SCOTUS justices because she thinks they are a “threat to democracy!” Lmao
Calling it now: if republicans have balls, the next SCOTUS challenge will be over whether they can impeach Biden post-term so as to render him liable to prosecution.
Oh, wait... never mind.
especially now that the Supremes have decided that Presidential official acts cannot open him to prosecution
Not necessarily - he too is immune for any "official acts", but at least in theory open to bribery prosecution, or anything else that can be argued to be "unofficial".
It does mean that Biden can't be criminally charged for "conspiracy to undermine the government" or something, on the basis of making terrible policy decisions.
I have a high opinion of the current court. We do not need a right leaning court and heaven knows we do not need a left leaning court. We need one that strictly interprets the law of the CONSTITUTION. We desperately need a CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. Given the wavey pattern of the decisions coming out this session, I think these nine (of a majority of the nine) are doing their best to stay to the constitution. I don’t “trust” them, they are humans and clearly have the capacity to make mistakes but I have hope their decisions will be well reasoned and not activist in nature as we’ve seen in the past
They truly seem to be 3-3-3. The middle 3 have been swing voters on many surprising issues. And 2 of them are Trump appointees! (Commie Barrett, Beer Kavanaugh, and then Pretty Boy Roberts)
And then there’s the idiot who said she thinks the 1A may get in the way of government doing what it wants.....
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/breaking-supreme-court-issues-ruling-presidential-immunity-court/
Too late now. The copies are printed. It may be our favor. I’m thinking not. Sadly. I do pray I’m wrong.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/breaking-supreme-court-issues-ruling-presidential-immunity-court/
They did!
🙏
Maybe they are being threatened ?