Considering the Supreme Court in 2023 and looking forward to 2024

Year end is always a good time for reviews, and looking forward towards the next year. Which will be an especially exciting SCOTUS watching season - to see how far they will go to help their sugar daddy, or are they going to cut the loser adrift, since he’s such become dead-weight, the incoherent babbling
slob.
Or?

Here’s an interesting review:

Dec 26, 2023 - Popok @ Meides Touch
For the second time in less than 25 years, the United States Supreme Court may choose our next President, just like they picked Bush over Gore in 2000. Michael Popok of Legal AF explains how the Court’s decisions over the next 60 days as to whether Trump can have his DC indictment dismissed on immunity grounds; whether 2 of his counts for obstruction of congress on Jan6 should be dismissed, and whether states can ban Trump from the ballot, coupled with their earlier political decisions on abortion, guns, voting, etc could choose our next president.

Although this story gives a nice nice spin, and looks past the realities of Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dishonesty. Apparently hope remains.
Now we simply need an electorate that insist on representative that defend the constitution and believe in rational constructive problem solving.

Can’t get into this one, and besides I don’t trust WSJ, but so far, they have the only actual SCOTUS review of the 2023 court record that I can find.

I’m sure there’ll be more showing up in the next days and weeks.

This MAGA Supreme Court nightmare does not seem to be doing anything but get worse.

But what do I know? So here’s a couple reviews by people that get paid to understand this stuff:

SCOTUS ‘brawl’: Legal scholar reveals what’s happening inside Supreme Court

March 4, 2024 #SCOTUS #Trump #Colorado

Civil rights attorney Sherrilyn Ifill joins Jen Psaki to react to the Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump can remain on Colorado’s ballot. Ifill tells Psaki, “Even though this was a unanimous judgment, I think the takeaway from this opinion today is the brawl that is clearly happening on the Supreme Court.”

1 Like

the Supreme court judged unanimously that to invalidate a federal candidate to Presidency was a US prerogative ans not a state one.

What would you say if Republican states invalidated Biden candidacy and if the court had judged that it was a state prerogative ?

1 Like

Well that would depend, if Biden collected and incited a mob of unhinged extremists to storm the US Capital in order to stop the orderly transition of power? If Biden openly sided with Putin in opposition to US military experts? If Biden showed never ending contempt for our governmental and regulatory agencies and expertise? If Biden spoke the way the trumpster does?

Well?
Heck yeah!
Why not?

Yeah I know it’s complicated, and there’s a razor thin rational argument for what they did. But then there’s still the timing, stall, stall, stall. It stinks, they sure acted GOP v Florida in 2000.

Besides, the Colorado case was going to keep the sexual offender and insurrectionist and business fraudster off the Colorado ballot, not all 50 states. It happens all the time, there are requirements for those who run for President and being an entrenched enemy of the government really truly should be a good reason to keep the traitorous trump maga man off the ballot.

I fully agree with that. but it belongs to a federal court to say it about Trump.

I am sorry, i have worked most of my life in law, and for me respect of the due processes is a requirement. And the decision was not a partisan one, it was unanimous.

I am curious about the talk that presidential immunity would affect all future presidents.

If SCOTUS determines that presidents do have absolute immunity, then it follows that President Biden has absolute immunity, today and can just close SCOTUS altogether without any repercussion at all!

Always the cryto fascist talk in your posts

That is obviously a statement of logic. It is pointing out that Trump is seeking fascist powers, not Biden. It’s a dangerous game Trump is playing, attempting to use the courts to create those powers. If he wins the game and is elected as those powers are put in place, he and his power hungry friends will wield them. Write4 is pointing out the reason why we have a Constitution and why we limit powers, because if you like one person and you allow that one person to decide the law, you have to also live with the next person.

2 Likes

I think that could have happened, with this court. Don’t forget though, there first needs to be some reason. Regardless, what I see SCOTUS defending is the two party system. Third party candidates get left off ballots every election. They want those barriers in place. It’s keeping the money and power concentrated.

I am willing to hedge that WRU says a lot of things today about trump that he also said back in 2016 . How did that turn out?? No love for third partys in his posts.
Willing to support the implementation of Marshall law for the benefit of his side of politics and fighting fascism with more fascism instead of more democracy just leaves his principled claims of saving our democracy and freedoms on a pile of stinking rotting garbage.

And to be so myopic on the world around you and not realising that fascism has already arrived in the USA with police violently assaulting and arresting 100 and 100 of peaceful student protests at univeristy campus, rubber bullets , tear gas and tasers, in states including Massachusetts, Washington DC , New York , colorado , Pittsburgh and Georgia shows how some people are so indoctrinated in their political ideology they cannot objectively assess or comment on blantant injustice

In fact Joe Biden gave a green light for the police crackdown on universities by declaring that anti-genocide protests were “antisemitic.”

Biden said the protests have “no place on college campuses” and that he was “putting the full force of the federal government” against them.

Bidens america on show for the world

This is so tiresome, but I don’t want to just let you run wild.

Injustice has been part of this country for a long time, of course. We interned Japanese, limited most opportunity to white people until very recently, Nixon hated the hippies. But each generation has its own challenges and Trump is unique in many ways.

On anti-semitism, as I keep saying, in case you haven’t noticed, which seems impossible since you obviously look at news, a lot of people are calling protests on campus anti-semitic. There is video of people actually being anti-semitic. When you hold an anti-genocide protest against the Jewish state, some anti-semitic people are going to show up. It happens in protests, there is only so much that can be controlled. We tell students to exercise their freedom of speech and some don’t understand how far those freedoms go.

Railing against one member of this forum is pointless. You are transferring your anger for a million people onto one. Go find an unmoderated forum to do that. There are plenty of them.

1 Like

Whats tiresome is nothing posts . The president has called these protests antisemitism . Do you agree ? Are you comfortable if that is acceptable , its consequences are terrible for an open and free society .
Is this also anti Semitic ?

Show me these videos then. I can can show you plenty of pro israel zionist jews showing up and trying to provoke peaceful protests

And falsely so. He doesn’t know this but he is responsible for innocent people like me being killed. His unsupported accusations are a red flag for some unhinged minds.

@dadada, you are a dangerous person!

p.s. I said it once but this is my last post about this dangerous person. I cannot learn anything from this … !

\He is on my permanent ignore list.

@dadada, you are a dangerous person!”
To zionist propaganda and atrocities

“He is on my permanent ignore list.”

I am happy with that

This is what I explained. Respond to what I said instead of repeating yourself.

Not required.

This is the reason given, not “because they are Jewush”

an unauthorized event Thursday afternoon that proceeded despite warnings and included threatening rhetoric and intimidation,

Why not required? Rehabilitate your argument or shut up

“Telling a mod to shut up is a violation of the rules.”
Then rehabilitate your argument tyrant

Saying this is not an argument.

My comment yesterday is that when there is anti-genocide protest against Israel, it’s inevitable that anti-semites will be there. We are capable of sorting out the individuals. We can stop antisemitism and stop war at the same time.

Unless we just argue amongst ourselves