Maddow on SCOTUS.

[deminks]

Link to tweet

?t=dPnZHO2InO7QQhvLRBCVTA&s=19
"This is B.S.—you were doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend," says @Maddow on SCOTUS. "And for you to say that this is something that the Court needs to decide because it's something that's unclear in the law is just flagrant, flagrant bullpucky."

End snip

Nothing to add.

[Lovie777]

1. K & R......................

[Baitball Blogger]

2. If they give Biden immunity, can he cancel the Supreme Court?

[tavernier]

3. They are doing this to prove their loyalty to him

So that he will keep them on after the rigged election.

[onecaliberal]

20. Biden will never have to leave if they give dump immunity, Biden should immediately jail him.

[louis-t]

21. That is my first thought, except

SCOTUS is now trying to figure out a way to give TSF immunity, then sunset it so Biden can't use it.

[Probatim]

37. Bush v. Gore all over again - the ruling will apply for this specific instance and for no other president.

They're looking through 12th century scrolls for specific wording to backup their ruling.

[Baitball Blogger]

54. If this gets determined by their tongues version of linguistic interpretation, man, the Supreme Court

will never come back from it.

[Baitball Blogger]

52. I suspect there will be protests in the street against the Supreme Court, if it goes that far.

[onecaliberal]

67. I might be alone, but I will be in the street.

[Polybius]

40. 3 things:

1. It would just mean that Presidents can't be prosected for criminal activity. Judges would still be able to throw out laws they find unConstitutional, and in the Constitution it says whoever wins in November takes office on January 20th .

2. If Presidents are immune, than he can't jail Trump, because he would be immune.

3. This is all silly, because they won't grant any President immunity.

[louis-t]

41. Point number 2 is not right.

They are talking about immunity for prosecution of crimes done while president, trying to say overturning an election is part of the duties of a president. TSF has committed crimes while NOT president as well. Biden could say he is throwing a criminal in prison and that is part of his duties as the nations highest law enforcement officer.

[Polybius]

42. Gotcha

So Biden would have to jail him for something he did out of office.

[louis-t]

56. Just my unscientific opinion.

[sdfernando]

66. Yes....like not returning classified documents!

That was all done after the orange pustule was out of office.

[msfiddlestix]

43. umm. if they will never grant immunity to trump, why hear trumps case in the first place?

[Polybius]

45. It takes 4 Justices to hear a case

Legal experts are saying there is no way they will side with Trump, but we shall see.

[msfiddlestix]

48. Well, that maybe the case, but then why hear it in the first place? Rhetorical, it's cuz they intended to give TSF

time he needs to make gain important ground with his campaign.

The motives of these 4 corrupt justices are to aid in a victory for TSF.

[Ohioboy]

47. They are helping Trump delay

Period.

[msfiddlestix]

51. Exactly., That's their entire agenda.

[Ohioboy]

53. Either scenario is very troubling

It's hard to tell which is worse: the idea that they are actually considering immunity, or the idea that they are using it to delay. It's one or the other and both stink.

[msfiddlestix]

64. My gut is saying both are likely the motives, I feel SCOTUS is very fearful of Biden second term.

for so many reasons, I dare not enumerate in specific terms.

[BlueKota]

6. Interesting possibility that since they're even considering

the possibility that a president could be immune, why couldn't Biden just declare himself immune, especially since the Supreme Court has no authority to enforce it's decisions independently and needs to depend on the executive and legislative branches to do that for them? Sure the House could vote to bring impeachment charges against him, but the Senate can vote not to convict.

I have always been a defender of the rule of law, but if they're side isn't going to follow it, then our side may have to ignore it too to protect the rest of us.

[Baitball Blogger]

7. It does seem like the Supreme Court is moving to end the concept of checks and balances.

Biden should just be proactive.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

23. We don't know that they are considering giving him immunity.

They have to have a hearing. They can't just declare the thing. I don't think Roberts wants his court's legacy to be a stupid immunity decision. They are going to let the appeals court decision stand.

[BlueKota]

25. Almost assuredly too late to bring Trump to trial

before the election which pretty much in my opinion almost amounts to the same thing.

They could have expedited the process, but they chose for more delay. Again just my opinion but that pretty much says to me, they are dragging this out for the benefit of Trump not for justice or the American people.

If Roberts cares so much about his legacy, IMHO, he's doing a piss poor job, of protecting his integrity and the integrity of the court in general so far.

[Think. Again.]

26. If they were going to let the appeals court decision stand....

....they would have done that.

[BlueKota]

30. This

For me they exhausted the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. Like when the Trump Trio, saying in their hearings that Roe was settled law then overturning it after they were seated. Also when it was made public that Thomas and Alito basically were bought and paid for by obscenely wealthy conservatives.

Not to mention that Thomas has refused to recuse himself from any of the insurrection cases given his wife has suspected ties with the insurrectionists

I am sorry but I just think it is incredibly naive to trust them anymore to protect the Constitution, or the rights of the American people.

[DENVERPOPS]

46. Yes!

It's like watching some of the professional sports games, and watching a flagrant ignoring of some plays/penalties to throw a game to one team or another........
It has become much much worse since all of the on-line betting websites have been created.....

We all have witnessed it in the NFL, the NBA, and NHL.........a refs horrifically wrong call(s) throwing a game.....

The Republican's favorite adage: "the end justifies the means" .......A statement that if a goal is desirable enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable, even if it involves unethical or immoral behavior. Or since October 1979,....... criminal or treasonous behavior.....................

We are about to witness their Coup De Gras (sp) in November of 2024 if something miraculous doesn't happen folks.....

[Ohioboy]

49. At this point I do not trust them to do the right thing

[lindysalsagal]

32. 4 votes refused to let it stand. They are corrupt. Thimas's wife

Needs to be indicted. Thomas needs to recuse himself.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

33. Why? This is an important thing. They want to rule on it to clarify.

If they just let the appeals court stand, then it is just about Trump. They want to answer the question.

[Think. Again.]

34. There is no question....

....there is nothing in the Constitution that even hints at Presidential immunity.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

35. Other than Article 2 section 3, sure.

There have been a number of cases on Presidential immunity. This one pushes the bounds for sure, but it is a constitutional thing.

[Polybius]

39. No

That would just mean that he can't be prosected for criminal activity. Judges would still be able to throw out laws they find unConstitutional.

[markpkessinger]

57. How they ultimately rule is entirely beside the point . . .

. . . This is about delaying the trial until after the election to help Trump. My prediction is that they won't ultimately find that he is immune, but they will have done their fealty to Trump by granting him the delay he wants, because, in the event he is re-elected, it won't matter whether they find that he was immune or not, because the DOJ won't prosecute a sitting president.

[dalton99a]

4. Kick

[onenote]

5. So Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are in league with Trump? They could've dissented. They didn't.

For that matter, since it was Smith who suggested that the Court grant cert, and made the most compelling argument for them doing so, should we be throwing him under the bus?

[Goodheart]

8. How do you know they didn't dissent?

[onenote]

9. Because they're not shy about issuing written dissents to cert decisions they think are egregiously wrong.

If the decision to grant cert is as wrong as some are claiming, they wouldn't stay silent. But I'm quite confident they didn't oppose granting cert for the very reasons that Smith gave for granting cert. They may well have wanted an even more expedited schedule than the Court adopted, but they could've given their views on that issue on the record as well. And didn't.

[ShazzieB]

12. I don't think dissents come into play when SCOTUS is merely announcing its intention to hear a case.

Dissents can happen when an actual decision is rendered, but that's not what happened today.

I wouldn't make any assumptions about what the liberal justices think about this.

[onenote]

13. It is relatively common for Justices to note their disagreement with decisions denying cert, sometimes with a

written opinion. While it is rarer for a Justice to note their objection to the grant of cert, nothing prevents a Justice from doing so. Justices also sometimes note their dissent from decisions to grant, deny, or vacate a stay.

[ShazzieB]

14. I still wouldn't read that much into it.

Asserting that Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are in league with Trump is a very serious charge. I don’t think their not issuing a dissent comes close to proving any such thing.

[msfiddlestix]

50. Smith requested an EXPEDITED decision.

[onenote]

70. And he got an expedited schedule. Just not quite as fast

There’s about a months difference between what Smith requested and what the Court ordered. Will that make the difference between a trial being completed before November and a decision after? Time will tell.

[jalan48]

10. She nailed it.

[spanone]

11. K&R

[Mr. Mustard 2023]

15. If Presidents are Immune then the Supreme Court

is irrelevant.

[SouthernDem4ever]

16. Exactly, and Biden will have carte blanche to do what he wants for the remainder of his term

Including blocking newly elected repuglicans.

[Think. Again.]

27. Not if the SC delays their decision until after Jan. 20.

[SouthernDem4ever]

44. Well, if you think they are willing to give up ALL credibility

then ok.

[Think. Again.]

55. Um, are we talking about the same Supreme Court?

[SouthernDem4ever]

71. One can always hope that we aren't.

[Think. Again.]

72. In my opinion, the current Supreme Court, as a whole, is not concerned about credibility.

[surfered]

17. President Biden...

…it’s time to call Seal Team Six.

[triron]

22. CIA can take care of Trump. Just do it.

[ScratchCat]

29. While its not that time,

A better idea would be for Biden to announce that under his Executive Powers granted by The Patriot Act, he is classifying Donald Trump as an enemy combatant for stealing Military secrets with the intent of selling them to foreign actors and detaining him indefinitely pending trial. Say the GOP will just have to nominate someone who didn't steal State secrets.

[triron]

62. Why isn't it?

When will it be time?

[calimary]

69. Yeah, I want to know that, too!

[William Seger]

18. "They know that we know, and they don't care."

That really set me off. We're going to be dealing with this irredeemably corrupt SC for a long time.

Edit: It's just like they knew that we knew they were lying about Roe in their confirmation hearings, and they didn't care.

[Midnight Writer]

19. Can anyone point to any indication whatsoever in our laws that a President has absolute immunity

for any actions or crimes he commits before, during and after his Presidency?

Why is this even an issue? This is just like TFG's "rigged election" BS that was presented in more than 60 Courts and failed in every one.

He and his lawyers are making up laws as they go along, like children who are losing a board game making up new rules mid-game.

Where are our "Originalist Conservatives" on the Supreme Court, who want to interpret our laws according to their personal speculation on the Original Intent of the Founders? What hook are they hanging this hat on? Where is there even a hint that total immunity was the intent of Founding Fathers?

The lower Court had no problem ruling on this in a timely fashion, because it is nonsense.

Our learned Supreme Court ought to be able to dispose of this obvious fantasy in an afternoon.

[markodochartaigh]

24. You seem to hold to the

antiquated notion that the supreme court rules on facts. After the case a few months ago (303 Creative) with the facts clearly made up out of thin air by the plaintiff I don't think that your supposition holds true. This supreme court just makes shit up.

[BlueKota]

31. Exactly

[erronis]

60. More like the petulant child who is losing at the board game and throws everything on the floor.

"You made me do it. Now clean it up!"

[iluvtennis]

28. Spot on Rachel, spot on! n/t

[orangecrush]

36. They know it

We know it

And they just don't give a fuck.

So how do we change that?

[triron]

63. Seems impossible.

[Stuart G]

38. K & R (no text)

[Highway61]

58. There she goes again

She is to the point and factual (as usual) leaving no opening for debate. Why I wish she was on every night. Boy, I miss her after Monday.

[Evolve Dammit]

59. Hear ya Rachel. Feel the same way

[MontanaMama]

61. They know what we know and

THEY DON’T CARE.

[JohnnyRingo]

65. Rachel calls it Bullpucky, Biden will say it's a bunch of Malarky...

I'll never catch on to this democrat lingo.
haha

[world wide wally]

68. Rephrase the question:

"Is the President above the law"?