General Discussion

deminks

(11,014 posts) Wed Feb 28, 2024, 09:55 PM Feb 28

164

Maddow on SCOTUS. [View all]

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.

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Maddow on SCOTUS. [View all] deminks Feb 28 OP

K & R...................... Lovie777 Feb 28 #1

If they give Biden immunity, can he cancel the Supreme Court? Baitball Blogger Feb 28 #2

They are doing this to prove their loyalty to him tavernier Feb 28 #3

Biden will never have to leave if they give dump immunity, Biden should immediately jail him. onecaliberal Feb 29 #20

That is my first thought, except louis-t Feb 29 #21

Bush v. Gore all over again - the ruling will apply for this specific instance and for no other president. Probatim Feb 29 #37

If this gets determined by their tongues version of linguistic interpretation, man, the Supreme Court Baitball Blogger Feb 29 #54

I suspect there will be protests in the street against the Supreme Court, if it goes that far. Baitball Blogger Feb 29 #52

I might be alone, but I will be in the street. onecaliberal Feb 29 #67

3 things: Polybius Feb 29 #40

Point number 2 is not right. louis-t Feb 29 #41

Gotcha Polybius Feb 29 #42

Just my unscientific opinion. louis-t Feb 29 #56

Yes....like not returning classified documents! sdfernando Feb 29 #66

umm. if they will never grant immunity to trump, why hear trumps case in the first place? msfiddlestix Feb 29 #43

It takes 4 Justices to hear a case Polybius Feb 29 #45

Well, that maybe the case, but then why hear it in the first place? Rhetorical, it's cuz they intended to give TSF msfiddlestix Feb 29 #48

They are helping Trump delay Ohioboy Feb 29 #47

Exactly., That's their entire agenda. msfiddlestix Feb 29 #51

Either scenario is very troubling Ohioboy Feb 29 #53

My gut is saying both are likely the motives, I feel SCOTUS is very fearful of Biden second term. msfiddlestix Feb 29 #64

Interesting possibility that since they're even considering BlueKota Feb 28 #6

It does seem like the Supreme Court is moving to end the concept of checks and balances. Baitball Blogger Feb 28 #7

We don't know that they are considering giving him immunity. Cuthbert Allgood Feb 29 #23

Almost assuredly too late to bring Trump to trial BlueKota Feb 29 #25

If they were going to let the appeals court decision stand.... Think. Again. Feb 29 #26

This BlueKota Feb 29 #30

Yes! DENVERPOPS Feb 29 #46

At this point I do not trust them to do the right thing Ohioboy Feb 29 #49

4 votes refused to let it stand. They are corrupt. Thimas's wife lindysalsagal Feb 29 #32

Why? This is an important thing. They want to rule on it to clarify. Cuthbert Allgood Feb 29 #33

There is no question.... Think. Again. Feb 29 #34

Other than Article 2 section 3, sure. Cuthbert Allgood Feb 29 #35

No Polybius Feb 29 #39

How they ultimately rule is entirely beside the point . . . markpkessinger Feb 29 #57

Kick dalton99a Feb 28 #4

So Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are in league with Trump? They could've dissented. They didn't. onenote Feb 28 #5

How do you know they didn't dissent? Goodheart Feb 28 #8

Because they're not shy about issuing written dissents to cert decisions they think are egregiously wrong. onenote Feb 28 #9

I don't think dissents come into play when SCOTUS is merely announcing its intention to hear a case. ShazzieB Feb 29 #12

It is relatively common for Justices to note their disagreement with decisions denying cert, sometimes with a onenote Feb 29 #13

I still wouldn't read that much into it. ShazzieB Feb 29 #14

Smith requested an EXPEDITED decision. msfiddlestix Feb 29 #50

And he got an expedited schedule. Just not quite as fast onenote Feb 29 #70

She nailed it. jalan48 Feb 29 #10

K&R spanone Feb 29 #11

If Presidents are Immune then the Supreme Court Mr. Mustard 2023 Feb 29 #15

Exactly, and Biden will have carte blanche to do what he wants for the remainder of his term SouthernDem4ever Feb 29 #16

Not if the SC delays their decision until after Jan. 20. Think. Again. Feb 29 #27

Well, if you think they are willing to give up ALL credibility SouthernDem4ever Feb 29 #44

Um, are we talking about the same Supreme Court? Think. Again. Feb 29 #55

One can always hope that we aren't. SouthernDem4ever Feb 29 #71

In my opinion, the current Supreme Court, as a whole, is not concerned about credibility. Think. Again. Feb 29 #72

President Biden... surfered Feb 29 #17

CIA can take care of Trump. Just do it. triron Feb 29 #22

While its not that time, ScratchCat Feb 29 #29

Why isn't it? triron Feb 29 #62

Yeah, I want to know that, too! calimary Feb 29 #69

"They know that we know, and they don't care." William Seger Feb 29 #18

Can anyone point to any indication whatsoever in our laws that a President has absolute immunity Midnight Writer Feb 29 #19

You seem to hold to the markodochartaigh Feb 29 #24

Exactly BlueKota Feb 29 #31

More like the petulant child who is losing at the board game and throws everything on the floor. erronis Feb 29 #60

Spot on Rachel, spot on! n/t iluvtennis Feb 29 #28

They know it orangecrush Feb 29 #36

Seems impossible. triron Feb 29 #63

K & R (no text) Stuart G Feb 29 #38

There she goes again Highway61 Feb 29 #58

Hear ya Rachel. Feel the same way Evolve Dammit Feb 29 #59

They know what we know and MontanaMama Feb 29 #61

Rachel calls it Bullpucky, Biden will say it's a bunch of Malarky... JohnnyRingo Feb 29 #65

Rephrase the question: world wide wally Feb 29 #68