Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Rhiannon12866

(206,332 posts)
Fri Apr 26, 2024, 10:29 PM Apr 26

Supreme Court conservatives SHOW THEIR TRUE COLORS - Talking Feds



The Supreme Court heard arguments today regarding Trump's immunity case. While absolute immunity seems to be somewhat off the table, several justices sought to label certain acts as having immunity. - 04/26/2024.
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court conservatives SHOW THEIR TRUE COLORS - Talking Feds (Original Post) Rhiannon12866 Apr 26 OP
Just a little touch of Immunity Medicine here, Aussie105 Apr 26 #1
I completely agree and it's long past time that the government took a second look at "lifetime" appointments Rhiannon12866 Apr 26 #2
Joyce Vance pointed out soldierant Apr 26 #3
Exactly! Thanks! Rhiannon12866 Apr 26 #4

Aussie105

(5,456 posts)
1. Just a little touch of Immunity Medicine here,
Fri Apr 26, 2024, 10:39 PM
Apr 26

just a gentle re-think of past events, nothing drastic mind, just enough legal lubricant to let TSF stay out of jail and ascend the throne in the Oval Office.
(And the Immunity Medicine had better be retrospective, fast acting and quick fading, so Joe doesn't get any ideas.)

Oh, the rewards the Supreme Court Clowns think are coming their way!

Transparent motivation is self-serving and very transparent.

Watching with interest to see what the SCOTUS clown circus will come up with.

Will I be astounded by their intelligence and insight, or will I just giggle like a 12 year old girl?
(Disclaimer: Not a 12 year old girl. Opposite of that.)

(Insert mental picture of a leaky rowboat called 'SCOTUS' with 6 unfit occupants bailing out water and rowing for their lives.)

Rhiannon12866

(206,332 posts)
2. I completely agree and it's long past time that the government took a second look at "lifetime" appointments
Fri Apr 26, 2024, 10:45 PM
Apr 26

Particularly Alito and Thomas do not appear to be following the law of the land as written.

soldierant

(6,940 posts)
3. Joyce Vance pointed out
Fri Apr 26, 2024, 11:34 PM
Apr 26

in her Substack newsletter, "Civil Discourse," that the Court can be swayed by a hypothetical, especially one that brings it home to them. Sotomayor's hypo was good, but I think would have been even better if she had said "So then, if a President decided that a judge or a Justice was corrupt, he could order that Justice assassinated and face no consequences." Particularly since several Justices are being exposed as corrupt, notably Thomas and Alito, and even to a lesser degree Roberts, judicial corruption cannot be far from their minds, I think that might have helped. (And they would never think of it themselves - i'm not sure what to call the trait that is lacking, but men just don't think that way - sure, everyone thinks "it can't happen to me" at such a basic level they don't even know they are thinking it, but enough women have been victims for a long enough history that we are more likely to consider it)

Rhiannon12866

(206,332 posts)
4. Exactly! Thanks!
Fri Apr 26, 2024, 11:42 PM
Apr 26

If, on the ridiculous chance that the (male) majority rules with TFG, they would have failed to consider what would happen to SCOTUS if the authoritarian rule that he has threatened ever came to pass. If he can legally assassinate "opponents," what would prevent him from dissolving the courts and legally assassinate the justices as well??

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Liberal YouTubers»Supreme Court conservativ...