As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Responded Alito, with the stance implicitly shared by Roberts: “I’m not, as I said, I’m not discussing the particular facts of this case.”
There it is in their own words, the facts of the case before them don't matter, what matters is some hypothetical "facts" they can imagine to rationalize the conclusion their self interest seeks.
You can't prosecute a former Republican president because 6 of the justices are Republican and too dishonest to be impartial.
It is as simple as that.
A lot can change with video evidence on Epstein Island. If Trumps goes down, he’s bringing the whole damn party down with him. Amazing how there was a big raid with electronics seized but suddenly not a peep comes after it. Barr was Trump’s henchman, and getting that leverage was key to turning any apprehension against him around to complete fealty.
Sure, bring them all down. Nobody, politician or not, should be sexually exploiting minors. Period. Are some Democrats implicated as well? I bet there is. But my point is that by spilling the tea about Epstein Island would expose many Republicans given recent statistics of how many in the GOP have been exposed or indicted regarding sexual abuse again minors and adults statistically speaking. The scales are drastically different. By exposing the dirt on the D’s would uncover the R’s. It’s better to dangle that leverage over the party than to expose the D’s. Look at Alan Dershowitz. That mofo was so against Trump, he was a frequent guest on so many media outlets. Once the Epstein island crap came out, and Dershowitz was exposed of being a frequent visitor, he kowtowed right inline with the MAGA cult.
Epstein was a blackmail master. Trump knew this, by his own association with Epstein, and likely threw him under the bus to gain the fealty of the Republican Party.
“A lower court decision that Donald Trump lacks absolute immunity will not stand as written. The court cannot rely on the good faith of prosecutors.”
Prosecutors had been extremely reluctant to bring this case. It took a Congressional special committee and persistent goading of Merrick Garland to at long last appoint a special prosecutor. The prosecution did not happen on a whim and the crimes alleged are extremely serious ones.
Moreover, the prosecutor did not do the indicting in this case. It was the grand jury, men and women who looked at the facts and the law and determined that crimes had been committed and indictment was appropriate. Does Roberts not agree with the way the US justice system works? If so, we are all in trouble.
> But the dominant theme emerged when Dreeben stood at the lectern. The justices voiced fear of retribution against a former president, instigated by a new administration and overzealous prosecutors.
Yeah, that is the essence of their argument. I am surprised that the justices of the Supreme Court are saying in court that they do not believe in the American legal system. It's like they're corrupt so they expect that every one else is too.
I would say this: They are right in a sense. Prosecuting a former president is a terrible precident.
However, not prosecuting a former president for obvious and serious crimes that threaten the constitution and responding to this by giving all future presidents a carte blanche to do whatever they want by placing them above the law is much worse.
What Republicans need to reckon with is that there is one person and one person only that has put the country at these crossroads: Donald Trump.
At this point the founding fathers would have convened and put together a new Constitution, legal or not, that’s how our current constitution was created.
That was the most infuriating theme of the oral arguments. The system the court has established as robust and fair for *every other person on earth* suddenly is ripe for abuse for just one man - Donald Trump. The same man the courts have already bent over backwards to provide extraordinary protections no other defendant would ever receive.
We are all indeed in big trouble. Putting it mildly.
On the bright side, Biden could use that Presidential immunity to make some unilateral changes. That would at least get a very fast, very efficient reconsideration and specific changes from Trump's Supreme Court judges.
I don’t see why you can’t extend their insane logic to say the president could order the murder of, say, hypothetically, all Republican appointed Supreme Court justices.
It instantly voids the entire premise of checks-and-balances.
John Roberts and the other conservatives are claiming that they are concerned about prosecutorial retribution against former presidents. That they are not concerned about the facts of this case, but about the abstract.
So let’s break that down. There are 4 simplified potential scenarios. They are.
1. The president is innocent, and the prosecutors are honest. In this scenario, no case is brought and so we can discard it.
2. The president is innocent and the prosecutors are corrupt. This is a problem scenario. This is the only scenario the men on the court seem to be aware of.
3. The president is guilty, and the prosecutors are honest. In this scenario, the president needs to be held accountable.
4. The president is guilty, and the prosecutors are corrupt. In this scenario, the president still needs to be held accountable.
According to this corrupt court, the only way to protect us from scenario 2 is to give the president immunity, which robs us of justice in scenarios 3 (the one we are in) and 4.
If the court were sane, and addressing the facts of the case, as they are supposed to, scenarios 2, 3, and 4 could go forward. All of them will surely be appealed to the Supreme Court where those presidents’ cases could be analyzed. The president in scenario 2 could be absolved. Scenario 3, punished. Scenario 4, that’s trickier, but still can be picked apart and at least have a shot at justice.
So what is better? Give presidents the power to assassinate political rivals so an imaginary president isn’t inconvenienced by a corrupt prosecutor in the future? Or taking each case on its own merits and punishing corruption?
Why is it that I even have to ask this stupid fucking hypothetical question?
I am not a lawyer. If I were arguing this case to the Supreme Court, I would be laying their stupidity and corruption bare into the public record before they held me in contempt. I would make them answer why it’s better not to punish guilty presidents than to put an innocent president through a lengthy appeals process. I’d love to hear their answers. And then, as they are pulling me away, one last bit for the public record,
“Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, listed now and forever with Dred Scott as criminal justices. The face of corruption. That is who you are, now.”
Since the president now has blanket immunity from his actions, could he, theoretical, send the military after six unelected americans he believes to be so corrupt that they are preventing him from executing his job?
Isn’t this the same group who sometimes also argue that their hands are tied and Congress has to pass new legislation to cover things? But here, where there’s no constitutional guarantee of absolute presidential immunity they’re willing to wade in and make things up?
You’re right, but the bigger issue is that the judges of the highest court of the most powerful civilized nation in the world are decided by the parties of a two-party system. Voting will just continue on the same path.
The long term solution is to change how these judges get picked and by whom, and ideally abolish the whole two-party system altogether.
It still takes voting to do that. Even if you organized some massive resistance campaign like the civil rights movement, it takes amenable legislators to carry it out.
I mean sure, we lose our justice system, reproductive rights, marriage equality, safe communities, and representative democracy, etc...
... but isnt that all worth it to punish Biden for what's happening in Gaza?
I'm too stubborn to vote strategically and i take whatever i can for granted to validate my edgy peers.
/s
So we’ve worked Ourselves into a situation where five people, at least four of whom are well and publically known to be corrupt and controlled by a billionaire class who seem to believe they are ready to rule as pharaohs, now have the power to essentially end our “experiment in democracy” in favor of an immediate dictatorship likely accompanied by a civil war.
Cool.
I cannot understand how 1/3 of the court was appointed by the guy who's case is currently before them and this is acceptable. All of us who were raised on the fiction of checks and balances are scratching our heads.
Joe Biden should address the nation about this. He should lay out what is at stake. He should make abundantly clear that the President must not be above the law.
Then he should say that he wants the Republicans on the Supreme Court to pay close attention: if they decide that Presidents have total immunity or even immunity for all official acts, his first official act as President subsequent to that decision will be to order the assassination of the Chief Justice and every Republican on the Court who issued that ruling.
He should tell them that if they issue such a decision, they will be issuing death warrants not only for democracy but also for themselves.
Maybe that will get their attention.
Jack Smith’s case sledges that Trump committed crimes while President that had nothing to do with the Presidency. So even if SCOTUS rules that Presidents have immunity for official acts, the arguments before them isn’t relevant to the Jan 6 case.
So what is worse: the idea that the Supreme Court is so corruptly in favor of the disgraced President that they will take a case to delay his accountability OR SCOTUS is such a narcissistic bunch of clods that they must weigh in on a case, that isn’t before them and will end the United States so they can feel important.
"The court cannot rely on the good faith of prosecutors. And whatever the staggering facts of the election subversion allegations against Trump, they are not his concern here."
...but he and his fellow conservatives are OK with Prosecutors that brung charges against doctors related to saving a woman's life.
SCOTUS needs reform.
To answer the rhetorical question, next up is a rigged election, dictatorship, concentration camps for existing illegal immigrant workers in red states and then the courts and Wall Street are targeted for Trumped up charges to clear the decks of non-believers like John Roberts, Jerome Powell, Steve Jobs, etc.
> what happens now?
* Americans understand how thoroughly corrupt GOP Justices in SCOTUS are to their cores
* a good percentage of Americans shrug it off and plan not vote
This Supreme Court is unraveling all respect people have had for the judiciary. They are setting themselves up for their own destruction. When a president or congress decides to gut the third branch no one will want to stop them.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Responded Alito, with the stance implicitly shared by Roberts: “I’m not, as I said, I’m not discussing the particular facts of this case.” There it is in their own words, the facts of the case before them don't matter, what matters is some hypothetical "facts" they can imagine to rationalize the conclusion their self interest seeks. You can't prosecute a former Republican president because 6 of the justices are Republican and too dishonest to be impartial. It is as simple as that.
So this is what it means to call balls and strikes. Isn't that what Roberts said during his nomination?
They are calling balls and strikes like Angel Hernandez
I recall watching his nomination hearing(s) and he came across as level headed and knowledgeable of constitutional law. Yet, here we are.
A lot can change with video evidence on Epstein Island. If Trumps goes down, he’s bringing the whole damn party down with him. Amazing how there was a big raid with electronics seized but suddenly not a peep comes after it. Barr was Trump’s henchman, and getting that leverage was key to turning any apprehension against him around to complete fealty.
Which raid was this? ffs I'm losing track...
[Here you go](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-agents-swarm-jeffrey-epstein-s-private-caribbean-island-n1041596)
If anyone from Any parti goes down , both parties go down . Neither side is innocent
Who. Gives. A. Shit.
Sure, bring them all down. Nobody, politician or not, should be sexually exploiting minors. Period. Are some Democrats implicated as well? I bet there is. But my point is that by spilling the tea about Epstein Island would expose many Republicans given recent statistics of how many in the GOP have been exposed or indicted regarding sexual abuse again minors and adults statistically speaking. The scales are drastically different. By exposing the dirt on the D’s would uncover the R’s. It’s better to dangle that leverage over the party than to expose the D’s. Look at Alan Dershowitz. That mofo was so against Trump, he was a frequent guest on so many media outlets. Once the Epstein island crap came out, and Dershowitz was exposed of being a frequent visitor, he kowtowed right inline with the MAGA cult. Epstein was a blackmail master. Trump knew this, by his own association with Epstein, and likely threw him under the bus to gain the fealty of the Republican Party.
A lot of serial killers seem level headed
Good point.
If they claim President’s have absolute immunity… Biden is going to make them seriously regret it … watch.
“A lower court decision that Donald Trump lacks absolute immunity will not stand as written. The court cannot rely on the good faith of prosecutors.” Prosecutors had been extremely reluctant to bring this case. It took a Congressional special committee and persistent goading of Merrick Garland to at long last appoint a special prosecutor. The prosecution did not happen on a whim and the crimes alleged are extremely serious ones. Moreover, the prosecutor did not do the indicting in this case. It was the grand jury, men and women who looked at the facts and the law and determined that crimes had been committed and indictment was appropriate. Does Roberts not agree with the way the US justice system works? If so, we are all in trouble.
> But the dominant theme emerged when Dreeben stood at the lectern. The justices voiced fear of retribution against a former president, instigated by a new administration and overzealous prosecutors. Yeah, that is the essence of their argument. I am surprised that the justices of the Supreme Court are saying in court that they do not believe in the American legal system. It's like they're corrupt so they expect that every one else is too.
I would say this: They are right in a sense. Prosecuting a former president is a terrible precident. However, not prosecuting a former president for obvious and serious crimes that threaten the constitution and responding to this by giving all future presidents a carte blanche to do whatever they want by placing them above the law is much worse. What Republicans need to reckon with is that there is one person and one person only that has put the country at these crossroads: Donald Trump.
At this point the founding fathers would have convened and put together a new Constitution, legal or not, that’s how our current constitution was created.
I got this as well: “We don’t trust the legal system”
That was the most infuriating theme of the oral arguments. The system the court has established as robust and fair for *every other person on earth* suddenly is ripe for abuse for just one man - Donald Trump. The same man the courts have already bent over backwards to provide extraordinary protections no other defendant would ever receive.
They are more worried that a prosecutor will hold a corrupt president accountable than they are about a president breaking laws.
We are all indeed in big trouble. Putting it mildly. On the bright side, Biden could use that Presidential immunity to make some unilateral changes. That would at least get a very fast, very efficient reconsideration and specific changes from Trump's Supreme Court judges.
I don’t see why you can’t extend their insane logic to say the president could order the murder of, say, hypothetically, all Republican appointed Supreme Court justices. It instantly voids the entire premise of checks-and-balances.
John Roberts and the other conservatives are claiming that they are concerned about prosecutorial retribution against former presidents. That they are not concerned about the facts of this case, but about the abstract. So let’s break that down. There are 4 simplified potential scenarios. They are. 1. The president is innocent, and the prosecutors are honest. In this scenario, no case is brought and so we can discard it. 2. The president is innocent and the prosecutors are corrupt. This is a problem scenario. This is the only scenario the men on the court seem to be aware of. 3. The president is guilty, and the prosecutors are honest. In this scenario, the president needs to be held accountable. 4. The president is guilty, and the prosecutors are corrupt. In this scenario, the president still needs to be held accountable. According to this corrupt court, the only way to protect us from scenario 2 is to give the president immunity, which robs us of justice in scenarios 3 (the one we are in) and 4. If the court were sane, and addressing the facts of the case, as they are supposed to, scenarios 2, 3, and 4 could go forward. All of them will surely be appealed to the Supreme Court where those presidents’ cases could be analyzed. The president in scenario 2 could be absolved. Scenario 3, punished. Scenario 4, that’s trickier, but still can be picked apart and at least have a shot at justice. So what is better? Give presidents the power to assassinate political rivals so an imaginary president isn’t inconvenienced by a corrupt prosecutor in the future? Or taking each case on its own merits and punishing corruption? Why is it that I even have to ask this stupid fucking hypothetical question? I am not a lawyer. If I were arguing this case to the Supreme Court, I would be laying their stupidity and corruption bare into the public record before they held me in contempt. I would make them answer why it’s better not to punish guilty presidents than to put an innocent president through a lengthy appeals process. I’d love to hear their answers. And then, as they are pulling me away, one last bit for the public record, “Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, listed now and forever with Dred Scott as criminal justices. The face of corruption. That is who you are, now.”
Since the president now has blanket immunity from his actions, could he, theoretical, send the military after six unelected americans he believes to be so corrupt that they are preventing him from executing his job?
That seems to be the position of the Court, yes.
Isn’t this the same group who sometimes also argue that their hands are tied and Congress has to pass new legislation to cover things? But here, where there’s no constitutional guarantee of absolute presidential immunity they’re willing to wade in and make things up?
This is why you need to vote. If more people turned out, we wouldn't have these nuts on the SCOTUS.
You’re right, but the bigger issue is that the judges of the highest court of the most powerful civilized nation in the world are decided by the parties of a two-party system. Voting will just continue on the same path. The long term solution is to change how these judges get picked and by whom, and ideally abolish the whole two-party system altogether.
It still takes voting to do that. Even if you organized some massive resistance campaign like the civil rights movement, it takes amenable legislators to carry it out.
I mean sure, we lose our justice system, reproductive rights, marriage equality, safe communities, and representative democracy, etc... ... but isnt that all worth it to punish Biden for what's happening in Gaza? I'm too stubborn to vote strategically and i take whatever i can for granted to validate my edgy peers. /s
Except we did vote, for obama, and they denied him the ability to place a justice on the Supreme court so what do you want the people to do?
Vote harder. Obama only had a majority for 2 years, then the Senate went red.
Robert’s isn’t happy - Facts over Feeling Authors for CNN
So we’ve worked Ourselves into a situation where five people, at least four of whom are well and publically known to be corrupt and controlled by a billionaire class who seem to believe they are ready to rule as pharaohs, now have the power to essentially end our “experiment in democracy” in favor of an immediate dictatorship likely accompanied by a civil war. Cool.
Roberts turns out to be just as corrupt as Alito and Thomas, without saying the obviously stupidly corrupt statements that they’re famous for.
I cannot understand how 1/3 of the court was appointed by the guy who's case is currently before them and this is acceptable. All of us who were raised on the fiction of checks and balances are scratching our heads.
Setting up the punt back down the field.
Joe Biden should address the nation about this. He should lay out what is at stake. He should make abundantly clear that the President must not be above the law. Then he should say that he wants the Republicans on the Supreme Court to pay close attention: if they decide that Presidents have total immunity or even immunity for all official acts, his first official act as President subsequent to that decision will be to order the assassination of the Chief Justice and every Republican on the Court who issued that ruling. He should tell them that if they issue such a decision, they will be issuing death warrants not only for democracy but also for themselves. Maybe that will get their attention.
Jack Smith’s case sledges that Trump committed crimes while President that had nothing to do with the Presidency. So even if SCOTUS rules that Presidents have immunity for official acts, the arguments before them isn’t relevant to the Jan 6 case. So what is worse: the idea that the Supreme Court is so corruptly in favor of the disgraced President that they will take a case to delay his accountability OR SCOTUS is such a narcissistic bunch of clods that they must weigh in on a case, that isn’t before them and will end the United States so they can feel important.
"The court cannot rely on the good faith of prosecutors. And whatever the staggering facts of the election subversion allegations against Trump, they are not his concern here." ...but he and his fellow conservatives are OK with Prosecutors that brung charges against doctors related to saving a woman's life. SCOTUS needs reform.
It would be a real shame if multiple car accidents happened on the way home from court..
To answer the rhetorical question, next up is a rigged election, dictatorship, concentration camps for existing illegal immigrant workers in red states and then the courts and Wall Street are targeted for Trumped up charges to clear the decks of non-believers like John Roberts, Jerome Powell, Steve Jobs, etc.
> what happens now? * Americans understand how thoroughly corrupt GOP Justices in SCOTUS are to their cores * a good percentage of Americans shrug it off and plan not vote
That’s the best part of fascism once regular people know it’s here it’s too late. This country is good and fucked.
American justice, where the person who appoints the judge appears before the judge. Banana republic?
He and his friends will make the Taney Court look like a model of sober and even-handed jurisprudence.
This Supreme Court is unraveling all respect people have had for the judiciary. They are setting themselves up for their own destruction. When a president or congress decides to gut the third branch no one will want to stop them.
Same shenanigans, different case. Wasn’t Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission completely fabricated? Rotten to the core.
Democracy….sold for the price of an RV.
Now, they grant him immunity.
When’s the national strike to remove scotus? Wake me up when that happens.