Skip to content
 
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.

(BBC)   After the Senate failed to do their duty, it's up to SCOTUS to determine if Donald Trump (who recently appointed 2 of the 9 justifies) has "total immunity" while in office   (bbc.co.uk) divider line
    More: Murica, President of the United States, Bill Clinton, Supreme Court of the United States, Richard Nixon, President Donald Trump's tax returns, Gerald Ford, US Supreme Court, Mr Trump  
•       •       •

1017 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jul 2020 at 8:24 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


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

 
2020-07-09 8:26:11 AM  
Justifies?
 
2020-07-09 8:27:07 AM  
Think of the worst possible outcome here then brace yourself, the decision will be worse.
 
2020-07-09 8:27:08 AM  
 And when he refuses anyway?
 
2020-07-09 8:28:53 AM  
5-4 bad guys.

Roberts....prove me wrong.
 
2020-07-09 8:30:13 AM  

physt: Think of the worst possible outcome here then brace yourself, the decision will be worse.


They're going to submit those nude pictures of me that were taken after I was in the pool?
 
2020-07-09 8:32:43 AM  
On the one hand, I'm hoping that the highest court in the land is capable of making the decision that the law applies equally to every citizen.

On the other hand, I have shat. It's full already.
 
ENS
2020-07-09 8:32:53 AM  

physt: Think of the worst possible outcome here then brace yourself, the decision will be worse.


Agreed. I have zero hope for a just outcome here.
 
2020-07-09 8:35:17 AM  

ENS: physt: Think of the worst possible outcome here then brace yourself, the decision will be worse.

Agreed. I have zero hope for a just outcome here.


Isn't the mostly likely outcome here they abstain from getting involved in a 'partisan politics' matter?

Just kick the can down the road.
 
2020-07-09 8:37:39 AM  
Trump is just treading water trying to get through the next election. I read somewhere he just got a 45-day stay, his second one, for financial disclosure. Dude is above the law, whether we like it or not. Get used to the sound of King Trump.
 
2020-07-09 8:41:03 AM  
This is way more important than people realize
*pours Kahlua and cream onto Cheerios*
 
ENS
2020-07-09 8:42:34 AM  

Oshawa: ENS: physt: Think of the worst possible outcome here then brace yourself, the decision will be worse.

Agreed. I have zero hope for a just outcome here.

Isn't the mostly likely outcome here they abstain from getting involved in a 'partisan politics' matter?

Just kick the can down the road.


Non lawyer here. I've read that one of the possible outcomes is they send the cases back to lower courts for some obscure reason(s),but I don't know the minutiae.
 
2020-07-09 8:43:21 AM  

GeeksAreMyPeeps: Justifies?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-09 8:44:45 AM  
How dodgy must his tax returns be if the IRS is *still* auditing them 5 years later.
 
2020-07-09 8:44:57 AM  

holdmybones: 5-4 bad guys.

Roberts....prove me wrong.


Not only 5-4, but overturning Jones v. Clintonand US v. Nixon to do so.
 
2020-07-09 8:48:49 AM  

Oshawa: ENS: physt: Think of the worst possible outcome here then brace yourself, the decision will be worse.

Agreed. I have zero hope for a just outcome here.

Isn't the mostly likely outcome here they abstain from getting involved in a 'partisan politics' matter?

Just kick the can down the road.


Too late for that. "Kicking the can" simply sends it back to the lower court. A political move in itself.

As well, if there were 4 Justices who wanted to punt, the cases wouldn't have granted cert at all.

We're gonna get decisions today. One way or the other.

The only question is how narrow it is (they are?). If it's tailor made to protect Trump and Trump only, it's going to be pretty obvious.
 
2020-07-09 8:51:20 AM  

Devil's Advocaat: How dodgy must his tax returns be if the IRS is *still* auditing them 5 years later.


Have you ever heard of Muhammad Ali? The snipe?  The Higgs boson?

/morons!
 
2020-07-09 8:53:14 AM  

JinxofSpades: And when he refuses anyway?


Assuming SCOTUS rules for sanity (don't know the odds there), Trump can't do shiat. Accounting firm Mazars has the returns and came forward on their own offering to provide them to the House committees and the Manhattan DA if they got "friendly" subpoenas. If they rule against Trump, Mazars transmits the returns, and that's that.
 
2020-07-09 8:56:47 AM  
My prediction:

6-3 against Trump.  Roberts and Gorsuch will be in the majority because this is directly about how the law works.   Alito, Thomas, and Kegbro against because it's not fair that the president should be harassed, even though the way the law is written it doesn't mention motivation at all.

Probably for both cases.
 
2020-07-09 8:57:06 AM  

avalanche: JinxofSpades: And when he refuses anyway?

Assuming SCOTUS rules for sanity (don't know the odds there), Trump can't do shiat. Accounting firm Mazars has the returns and came forward on their own offering to provide them to the House committees and the Manhattan DA if they got "friendly" subpoenas. If they rule against Trump, Mazars transmits the returns, and that's that.


Didn't Deutsche Bank do the essentially the same thing (knowing they could hide behind Trump's lawsuit until forced to hand them over)?
 
2020-07-09 8:59:55 AM  
I wish I understood this.  Commit tons of crimes before being president and you are immune from any prosecution for those crimes or even the ability to have an adequate investigation conducted while you are in office.

My only guess is that the founders just never imagined someone as corrupt as Trump with as many skeletons in their closet would get elected in the first place.

/craziness
 
2020-07-09 9:00:50 AM  
In a just world DJT would be classified as a felon with a volume of charges (don't get me started) long before he even tried to run for president and would be ineligible. And now they want to discuss permanent legal immunity? Incredible.
 
2020-07-09 9:01:36 AM  

sprag: My prediction:

6-3 against Trump.  Roberts and Gorsuch will be in the majority because this is directly about how the law works.   Alito, Thomas, and Kegbro against because it's not fair that the president should be harassed, even though the way the law is written it doesn't mention motivation at all.

Probably for both cases.


This is what I see as well, although I think Gorsuch will be wishywashy. The opinion should be an interesting read. It could be pretty condescending towards Trump and his lawyers from some of the things I've seen.
 
2020-07-09 9:02:06 AM  

Officer Barrelroll: I wish I understood this.  Commit tons of crimes before being president and you are immune from any prosecution for those crimes or even the ability to have an adequate investigation conducted while you are in office.

My only guess is that the founders just never imagined someone as corrupt as Trump with as many skeletons in their closet would get elected in the first place.

/craziness


It is difficult to imagine fraud and money laundering on this scale in the 1700s....

It's almost as if laws and documents of rights need to be amended over time to fit the context of the current century.

My bear arms are quivering....
 
2020-07-09 9:18:34 AM  
Is popcorn a recommended breakfast food?
 
2020-07-09 9:23:21 AM  
This is the worst timeline, so I expect a 5-4 decision upholding immunity.
On the other hand, it is such a blatantly bad idea, as demonstrated by the current WH occupant (but certainly not limited to him or his party, in terms of what it represents), that I'm not sure at least one of the Republicans will be able to justify it.
 
2020-07-09 9:26:38 AM  

Officer Barrelroll: I wish I understood this.  Commit tons of crimes before being president and you are immune from any prosecution for those crimes or even the ability to have an adequate investigation conducted while you are in office.

My only guess is that the founders just never imagined someone as corrupt as Trump with as many skeletons in their closet would get elected in the first place.

/craziness


The Founding Fathers assured me that the wisdom of the Electoral College would prevent such a man from being elected, as opposed to the easily manipulated ignorant populace.
 
2020-07-09 9:32:31 AM  

Officer Barrelroll: I wish I understood this.  Commit tons of crimes before being president and you are immune from any prosecution for those crimes or even the ability to have an adequate investigation conducted while you are in office.

My only guess is that the founders just never imagined someone as corrupt as Trump with as many skeletons in their closet would get elected in the first place.

/craziness


There is no Constitutional protection of the President for crimes.  It is entirely an internal DoJ memo - they consider the President too important to have to deal with criminal prosecutions. They say he needs to be impeached, removed, and then they will prosecute (only if he has  D after is name).  Since the DoJ is the one who would bring charges, it creates a de facto immunity for the President, since they just simply refuse to charge a sitting President no matter what he did.  But it is entirely in their little procedure manual, not enshrined in law or Constitutional mandate.  It isn't even new - that has been the DoJ's position for decades.
 
2020-07-09 9:34:53 AM  

swahnhennessy: This is the worst timeline, so I expect a 5-4 decision upholding immunity.
On the other hand, it is such a blatantly bad idea, as demonstrated by the current WH occupant (but certainly not limited to him or his party, in terms of what it represents), that I'm not sure at least one of the Republicans will be able to justify it.


"We are too pure for your commie, [racial slur] Constitution - fark you!".  That's the official Republican response for everything.  It isn't even hypocrisy, since they believe their status as Master Race means laws don't apply to them.
 
2020-07-09 9:39:48 AM  
After the Senate Republican Senators failed to do their duty, it's up to SCOTUS to determine if Donald Trump (who recently appointed 2 of the 9 justifies) has "total immunity" while in office

FTFY, subby.
 
2020-07-09 9:52:22 AM  

holdmybones: 5-4 bad guys.

Roberts....prove me wrong.


No. I dont know about the mazars ruling, but he will lose the New York subpoena case. It should be unanimous, but I'm thinking at best it will be 7-2.
 
2020-07-09 9:59:41 AM  
! 5-4 vote, Thomas writing for the majority.

"At the center of this case is the issue of presidential harassment. President Trump, despite winning the 2016 election in a landslide and seeing the largest crowds ever on the National Mall for his inauguration, has suffered meritless charge after meritless charge from the Fake News. ObamaGate, the lies of Stormy Daniels, Hunter Biden's crimes in Ukraine being used to falsely frame this president of misdeeds: this court has determined that the release of the president's financials can only serve to be used to harm him despite his innocence. Yes, I am making this up, the opinion and vote have not been posted yet. This harassment has been so severe that if the president were to bring suit to challenge if his first term counts under the Twenty-Second Amendment many on this bench would agree that he would win on the merits. Where we go one, we go all."
 
2020-07-09 10:01:00 AM  

Grungehamster: ! 5-4 vote, Thomas writing for the majority.

"At the center of this case is the issue of presidential harassment. President Trump, despite winning the 2016 election in a landslide and seeing the largest crowds ever on the National Mall for his inauguration, has suffered meritless charge after meritless charge from the Fake News. ObamaGate, the lies of Stormy Daniels, Hunter Biden's crimes in Ukraine being used to falsely frame this president of misdeeds: this court has determined that the release of the president's financials can only serve to be used to harm him despite his innocence. Yes, I am making this up, the opinion and vote have not been posted yet. This harassment has been so severe that if the president were to bring suit to challenge if his first term counts under the Twenty-Second Amendment many on this bench would agree that he would win on the merits. Where we go one, we go all."


Please don't tell me that's the real opinion.
 
2020-07-09 10:03:53 AM  
Is this the thread this time?
 
2020-07-09 10:04:19 AM  

Jurodan: Is this the thread this time?


I guess so:
Gorsuch with the liberals on McGirt
 
2020-07-09 10:05:19 AM  

TheManofPA: Jurodan: Is this the thread this time?

I guess so:
Gorsuch with the liberals on McGirt


Until congress says otherwise, that land is as we promised (which would be Creek Nation)
 
2020-07-09 10:07:20 AM  

Officer Barrelroll: I wish I understood this.  Commit tons of crimes before being president and you are immune from any prosecution for those crimes or even the ability to have an adequate investigation conducted while you are in office.

My only guess is that the founders just never imagined someone as corrupt as Trump with as many skeletons in their closet would get elected in the first place.

/craziness


Perhaps were too busy raping their slaves to surmise what financial farkery a person could get up to in the modern era where life hardly resembles anything they'd have ever seen?
 
2020-07-09 10:08:58 AM  
Sharp is decided based on McGirt with a "see other case" note and no Gor since recused.
 
2020-07-09 10:09:59 AM  

TheManofPA: Jurodan: Is this the thread this time?

I guess so:
Gorsuch with the liberals on McGirt


That's a little surprising. Gorsuch has tended to be a friend to ranchers. I guess his respect for private ownership translates to the treaties, as it should. Logical, I suppose, but still unexpected.
 
2020-07-09 10:11:33 AM  
Vance appears to go against president
 
2020-07-09 10:13:17 AM  
Can I start sucking dick yet?
 
2020-07-09 10:13:50 AM  
7-2 Vance.

Not near as close as I would have expected.

Bodes well for Congress, IMO.
 
2020-07-09 10:13:54 AM  

Professor_Doctor: Can I start sucking dick yet?


Yes.  7-2 he is getting farked
 
2020-07-09 10:13:56 AM  
Rejecting a heightened need standard does not leave Presidents
without recourse. A President may avail himself of the same protec-tions available to every other citizen, including the right to challenge the subpoena on any grounds permitted by state law, which usually include bad faith and undue burden or breadth.
Given the arguments made, it might be the other way on Mazars
 
2020-07-09 10:14:17 AM  
Interesting that both of "his guys" went against hin
 
2020-07-09 10:14:44 AM  
Well, Twitter should be interesting today.  Not to mention his rally this weekend.
 
2020-07-09 10:15:26 AM  

bobtheme: Is popcorn a recommended breakfast food?


is Trump fat and stupid? Every day, anytime, popcorn is nature's candy.
 
2020-07-09 10:16:20 AM  
Lets try to keep this as half chub/quarter wetness ladies and gents, state case went against him but 5 minutes to go on the Federal. Still waiting on that one (though at least state is a win since he has used highest state recourse in Vance I think)
 
2020-07-09 10:16:49 AM  

TheManofPA: Rejecting a heightened need standard does not leave Presidents
without recourse. A President may avail himself of the same protec-tions available to every other citizen, including the right to challenge the subpoena on any grounds permitted by state law, which usually include bad faith and undue burden or breadth.
Given the arguments made, it might be the other way on Mazars


I don't think, sans the courts, that Congress has an appeal process if they request documents. And they can and do do it.
 
2020-07-09 10:17:42 AM  
"The arguments here and in the Court of Appeals were limited to absolute immunity and heightened need. The Court of Appeals, however, has directed that the case may be returned to the District Court, where the President may raise further arguments as appropriate."

Oh, come the fark on.  Damnit.
 
2020-07-09 10:18:29 AM  

TheManofPA: Lets try to keep this as half chub/quarter wetness ladies and gents, state case went against him but 5 minutes to go on the Federal. Still waiting on that one (though at least state is a win since he has used highest state recourse in Vance I think)


And returned to 2nd court and then district court as limited to absolute immunity and heightened need so yeah...no taxes yet in Vance.

Well now I'm wondering bad news on the other one to leave them both post-election
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  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.