Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Awww, John Roberts claims the ConSupremes are very concerned that all the calls for congressional hearings into Don Cheeto's many crimes could be seen by the ConJustices as mere harassment   (reuters.com) divider line
    More: Creepy, Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court justices, court's conservative majority, Richard Nixon, President Donald Trump's bid, President of the United States, conservative justices, Bill Clinton  
•       •       •

1960 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2020 at 1:57 PM (12 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



86 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-05-13 9:43:11 AM  
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said under the House's argument there would be "nothing preventing the harassment of a president."

So they're just openly parroting Trump's lines now.  Cool, cool.  Balls and strikes.
 
2020-05-13 9:52:56 AM  

Mentat: Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said under the House's argument there would be "nothing preventing the harassment of a president."

So they're just openly parroting stroking Trump's lines penis now.  Cool, cool.  Balls and strikes.

and the whole shaft. All 4 inches of it.

 
2020-05-13 10:20:31 AM  
The government attorney addressed this.  There has never been anything stopping 2300 state/local prosecutors from filing suit against the president prior to now, and there's never been a flood of suits filed.

Maybe if this president didn't break every law he possibly could, he wouldn't have so many suits and cases against him?
 
2020-05-13 12:01:21 PM  
It's a valid concern. Imagine if the GOP could have used the court to harass Obama.

That said, Donnie is a crook and this IS a special case.
 
2020-05-13 1:19:32 PM  
I f*cking knew it. F*cking traitors.
 
2020-05-13 1:20:41 PM  
SCOTUS is going to punt.
 
2020-05-13 2:00:54 PM  
Reason #1028380 I no longer believe in legal justice. Vigilante justice would have already had results by now.
 
2020-05-13 2:02:02 PM  
Oh my farking god. Are these goddamn authoritarian assholes seriously going to make the president a farking king and claim their fascist bullshiat is constitutional? Unfarkingbelievable.
 
2020-05-13 2:02:07 PM  
Trump is the humanoid embodiment of a living Constitutional Crisis. He's an Edge (case) Lord.
 
2020-05-13 2:02:47 PM  

drewsfarkthrowaway: Reason #1028380 I no longer believe in legal justice. Vigilante justice would have already had results by now.


Vigilante justice certainly got results for Ahmad Aubrey
 
2020-05-13 2:03:42 PM  

SpectroBoy: It's a valid concern. Imagine if the GOP could have used the court to harass Obama.

That said, Donnie is a crook and this IS a special case.


There was nothing stopping them other than they didn't think of it

Besides, they were busy with birth certificates and Benghazi
 
2020-05-13 2:03:48 PM  
I don't see anything in the Constitution that curbs congressional oversight due to a subjective opinion about "harassment"
 
2020-05-13 2:04:06 PM  
roberts and his rapist pals are all traitors.  They are judges and I have never met a judge who cared about justice.  So I guess his anti-American ways are just par for the course.

I fact, the next time I'm called for jury duty, I think I will bring that up when they call on me.
 
2020-05-13 2:04:49 PM  
Ok...how many things have Don Jr, Ivanka, or Eric on them? Go the fark after the kids if 45* is impervious.
 
2020-05-13 2:05:07 PM  
Don't the ConSupremes realize that they are betraying their oath?
They are a making a mockery of the Court and of American Justice.
You'd think Roberts would be worried about pissing away all their credibility on
a blatantly criminal pOTUS.

And I fully expect that they'll give equal consideration to Al Sharpton ( who is by no means a criminal) when he's POTUS
 
2020-05-13 2:05:24 PM  
So, President Biden has a green light to add 6 SCOTUS justices in 2021

Cool.
 
2020-05-13 2:05:31 PM  
I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't say anything about presidential harassment. Won't stop the originalist from reading that into it.
 
2020-05-13 2:05:59 PM  
So they'll be demanding Trump to resign right?

Because rightwingers treat the harassed by hounding them out of public. Harassment is typically seen as the victim's fault by conservatives. Why were you at the party if you didn't want to be harrassed? Why do you dress like that if you don't want to be harassed?

Well Donald, why are you in the Republican party, and have you ever looked in a mirror? You're the stupidest looking thing I've ever laid eyes on.
 
2020-05-13 2:07:09 PM  

SpectroBoy: It's a valid concern. Imagine if the GOP could have used the court to harass Obama.

That said, Donnie is a crook and this IS a special case.


Right.  They have to be impartial, and that means taking both sides' positions and, you know, judging them.  Hopefully he's raising the issue to later demonstrate how the defense has failed to prove actual harassment has occurred.
 
2020-05-13 2:07:23 PM  
Of course.. and meanwhile the statue of limitations clock keeps ticking while the courts keep kicking the can up and down the hill. Trump will run out the clock, spike a cheburek filled with a shredded early copy of the US constitution into Lady Justice's friggin face, and hoist the Putin Freedumb Trophy in front of a crowd of cheering MAGAts.
 
2020-05-13 2:07:26 PM  
And this tune will change the instant Biden would be sworn in, so every American can sue him for that job his son had.
 
2020-05-13 2:07:28 PM  
sott.netView Full Size


. . . but but but EVIDENCE so much DIRECT EVIDENCE . . .
. . . I've seen it with my own eyes . . .

reactiongifs.comView Full Size
 
2020-05-13 2:08:41 PM  

edmo: SCOTUS is going to punt.


They absolutely are. The conservatives on the court are going to come up with some bullshiat argument to protect Trump that supposedly only applies to this one case, but will actually protect Republican presidents from being held accountable until the republic collapses from corruption.
 
2020-05-13 2:08:46 PM  
I'm calling the long shot. 8-1 rejecting Trump's arguments, and Kagan draws the short straw and has to write the dissenting opinion concerning harrassment.
 
2020-05-13 2:09:49 PM  

SpectroBoy: It's a valid concern. Imagine if the GOP could have used the court to harass Obama.

That said, Donnie is a crook and this IS a special case.


They spent his entire eight years in office suing the Obama administration over almost literally everything.

You didn't hear about it unless you were paying specific attention to politics at the time because more or less all of the cases were so obviously meritless that they got vaporized with the the legal equivalent of Godzilla's atomic breath the moment they so much as touched an actual court.

The other side of the aisle has actually been comparatively extremely restrained, almost too picky about choosing their battles.  You only hear about it because the cases actually have merit and not only tend to stick in court, but have frequently resulted in members of the administration going to jail and court orders outright negating policy declarations.

"Legal harassment" isn't a problem for any administration that's even pretending to be doing its job, legitimate executive privilege and existing legal standards mean that if they're even trying to behave within the bounds of the law it doesn't matter who files what lawsuits, they'll be fine.  The Trump administration isn't getting "harassed", they're just... not even pretending to be trying to behave legally, so the fault of the court proceedings continuing is entirely on their end.
 
2020-05-13 2:09:52 PM  

anjin-san: drewsfarkthrowaway: Reason #1028380 I no longer believe in legal justice. Vigilante justice would have already had results by now.

Vigilante justice certainly got results for Ahmad Aubrey


And they'd get results for him post-mortem as well.
 
2020-05-13 2:09:52 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [sott.net image 351x206]

. . . but but but EVIDENCE so much DIRECT EVIDENCE . . .
. . . I've seen it with my own eyes . . .

[reactiongifs.com image 360x289] [View Full Size image _x_]


The best way to really stick it to that lib is to just release all of Trump's records. Then all of Schiff's lies will be exposed, right?
 
2020-05-13 2:11:25 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: I don't see anything in the Constitution that curbs congressional oversight due to a subjective opinion about "harassment"


This .. Show just cause for a warrant and serve it .. No one is above the law ..
 
2020-05-13 2:12:09 PM  

mikalmd: HotWingConspiracy: I don't see anything in the Constitution that curbs congressional oversight due to a subjective opinion about "harassment"

This .. Show just cause for a warrant and serve it .. No one is above the law ..


Not according to the DOJ...
 
2020-05-13 2:12:48 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [sott.net image 351x206]

. . . but but but EVIDENCE so much DIRECT EVIDENCE . . .
. . . I've seen it with my own eyes . . .

[reactiongifs.com image 360x289] [View Full Size image _x_]


Seriously, stop posting. You're looking even more intellectually challenged than you actually are
 
2020-05-13 2:13:02 PM  

Jim_Callahan: SpectroBoy: It's a valid concern. Imagine if the GOP could have used the court to harass Obama.

That said, Donnie is a crook and this IS a special case.

They spent his entire eight years in office suing the Obama administration over almost literally everything.

You didn't hear about it unless you were paying specific attention to politics at the time because more or less all of the cases were so obviously meritless that they got vaporized with the the legal equivalent of Godzilla's atomic breath the moment they so much as touched an actual court.

The other side of the aisle has actually been comparatively extremely restrained, almost too picky about choosing their battles.  You only hear about it because the cases actually have merit and not only tend to stick in court, but have frequently resulted in members of the administration going to jail and court orders outright negating policy declarations.

"Legal harassment" isn't a problem for any administration that's even pretending to be doing its job, legitimate executive privilege and existing legal standards mean that if they're even trying to behave within the bounds of the law it doesn't matter who files what lawsuits, they'll be fine.  The Trump administration isn't getting "harassed", they're just... not even pretending to be trying to behave legally, so the fault of the court proceedings continuing is entirely on their end.


Another good point. Being held accountable for your crimes isn't harassment if you're actually a criminal.
 
2020-05-13 2:13:43 PM  
He sounds ConConcerned.
 
2020-05-13 2:14:07 PM  
Just more evidence that judges should be barred from being members of political parties.
 
2020-05-13 2:15:28 PM  

Troy Aikman's Giant Thumbs: Just more evidence that judges should be barred from being members of political parties.


Nice idea, in theory, until you try to find someone who is apolitical.  I'm sure they exist, but not anywhere near D.C
 
2020-05-13 2:15:42 PM  
Because Trump committing less crimes is an option that's off the table.
 
2020-05-13 2:15:45 PM  

OldRod: The government attorney addressed this.  There has never been anything stopping 2300 state/local prosecutors from filing suit against the president prior to now, and there's never been a flood of suits filed.

Maybe if this president didn't break every law he possibly could, he wouldn't have so many suits and cases against him?


Actually, he addressed what was stopping 200 State/local prosecutors and Grand Juries, and that's jurisdiction.

NYNY has jurisdiction because Trump had a business headquartered there. It was further addressed that the President has the same recourse that anyone else has, they can challenge a subpoena in court where  case has to be made that the subpoena is relevant and the defendant can make a case that it is an undue burden.

Having listened to it, I'm not getting the article. What I heard was a court very anxious to develop a test that they could be defined to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate subpoenas of someone's records, but most especially those of a President or other elected official.

The White House had proposed such a definition. It sucked. But there wasn't a good alternative offered.

SCOTUS likes to take the ideas to use from the arguments put before it. They hate inventing things. They asked again and again for a set of rules to be followed. It was fairly obvious that they would ask that. The lack of an answer is significant.

I'm pretty sure Roberts wants to allow the subpoenas. His instincts seems to be that the White House's case sucks. But he has to make his ruling from the context of a set of rules created to decide these things in the future. Either wing of the court will have to convince them that they have the better set of rules and then he will apply those rules to the cases in front of him. I do think he'll decide on the best rules first and not back into it. Call me naive.
 
2020-05-13 2:17:37 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [sott.net image 351x206]

. . . but but but EVIDENCE so much DIRECT EVIDENCE . . .
. . . I've seen it with my own eyes . . .

[reactiongifs.com image 360x289]


Why do you bother posting this boomer garbage?
 
2020-05-13 2:18:52 PM  
The most maddening thing about all of this is the amount of people that seem to think this is nothing more than harassment, because they don't believe that Trump has ever committed any crimes.  They think this is all about just turning over stone after stone in hopes of finally finding an actual crime.

It's even more maddening that some of the people saying that are on the SCOTUS.
 
2020-05-13 2:18:59 PM  

emersonbiggins: Troy Aikman's Giant Thumbs: Just more evidence that judges should be barred from being members of political parties.

Nice idea, in theory, until you try to find someone who is apolitical.  I'm sure they exist, but not anywhere near D.C


I'm not saying that they have to be apolitical, but being a member of an organization is a separate matter. If they want to belong to a party, they should be required to recuse themselves from any suits involving members of that party.
 
2020-05-13 2:19:16 PM  

Sophont: And this tune will change the instant Biden would be sworn in, so every American can sue him for that job his son had.


They'll just make their ruling only apply in this very specific case and can't be used as future precedent
 
2020-05-13 2:19:20 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: edmo: SCOTUS is going to punt.

They absolutely are. The conservatives on the court are going to come up with some bullshiat argument to protect Trump that supposedly only applies to this one case, but will actually protect Republican presidents from being held accountable until the republic collapses from corruption.


Actually, the most likely punt will be to send it back down to ask a lower court to craft a clear set of rules on how to decide if a subpoena is legitimate or harassment, and how to decide what is an "undue burden".
 
2020-05-13 2:19:55 PM  

SpectroBoy: It's a valid concern. Imagine if the GOP could have used the court to harass Obama.

That said, Donnie is a crook and this IS a special case.


The House GOP certainly used its power to harass Clinton. Conservatives were okay with that. But now that it's a Republican under the microscope, I guess it's different.
 
2020-05-13 2:20:51 PM  
So they weren't cool with McConnell stonewalling the Merrick Garland nomination?
 
2020-05-13 2:20:52 PM  

I'm an Egyptian!: I f*cking knew it. F*cking traitors.


Holy farking shiat.

A trolling headline & a crappy article & suddenly Farkers lose their minds.

Listen to the arguments & it's clear that that's not at all what happened in the case. A couple justices were like, "Well, we decided in Clinton v. Jones that harassment was a concern. On which planet, Mr. Donnie's attorney, does this constitute harassment?" but even the conservative justices were super not buying Donnie's claims.

Except Alito, weirdly. I was expecting Thomas
 
2020-05-13 2:20:52 PM  

durbnpoisn: They think this is all about just turning over stone after stone in hopes of finally finding an actual crime.


Despite that being exactly what happened to Clinton, Obama, and Biden.
 
2020-05-13 2:21:45 PM  

andrewagill: I'm an Egyptian!: I f*cking knew it. F*cking traitors.

Holy farking shiat.

A trolling headline & a crappy article & suddenly Farkers lose their minds.

Listen to the arguments & it's clear that that's not at all what happened in the case. A couple justices were like, "Well, we decided in Clinton v. Jones that harassment was a concern. On which planet, Mr. Donnie's attorney, does this constitute harassment?" but even the conservative justices were super not buying Donnie's claims.

Except Alito, weirdly. I was expecting Thomas


Since when have conservative justices cared about the arguments?
 
2020-05-13 2:22:32 PM  

durbnpoisn: The most maddening thing about all of this is the amount of people that seem to think this is nothing more than harassment, because they don't believe that Trump has ever committed any crimes.  They think this is all about just turning over stone after stone in hopes of finally finding an actual crime.

It's even more maddening that some of the people saying that are on the SCOTUS.


What makes this difficult for them is that the judges have to speak to the future.
 
2020-05-13 2:24:08 PM  

youncasqua: SpectroBoy: It's a valid concern. Imagine if the GOP could have used the court to harass Obama.

That said, Donnie is a crook and this IS a special case.

The House GOP certainly used its power to harass Clinton. Conservatives were okay with that. But now that it's a Republican under the microscope, I guess it's different.


Sort of my point.

Even a PERFECTLY UNBIASED judge in this case would have to consider the possible abuses. Subby's trolly headline aside.
 
2020-05-13 2:24:54 PM  

Great_Milenko: SpectroBoy: It's a valid concern. Imagine if the GOP could have used the court to harass Obama.

That said, Donnie is a crook and this IS a special case.

Right.  They have to be impartial, and that means taking both sides' positions and, you know, judging them.  Hopefully he's raising the issue to later demonstrate how the defense has failed to prove actual harassment has occurred.


And to draw the line carefully to avoid future abuse by both sides.
 
2020-05-13 2:27:25 PM  
Gorsuch questioned why the Supreme Court would give Trump immunity in a criminal investigation when it did not give Clinton immunity in the 1997 ruling concerning the sexual misconduct litigation.

"How is this more burdensome than what took place in Clinton v. Jones?" Gorsuch asked, using the name of the case. "I guess I'm not sure I understand that."

Sekulow responded that criminal cases can result in a loss of liberty while civil lawsuits can lead only to monetary damages.


So Jay Sekulow did learn something in law school.

Color me surprised.
 
Displayed 50 of 86 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
X
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.