GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Pointless, abject cowardice on the part of the Court particularly in light of the fact that an Appeals Court already rules unanimously there was no such immunity. It is not often the Supreme Court will even agree to hear a case of an appeal when the appeal result was unanimous.
...It is not often the Supreme Court will even agree to hear a case of an appeal when the appeal result was unanimous.
Generally correct but time constraints are forcing their (SCOTUS) hand. I think that if the election was 2-3 years off that they may have waited for a trial, verdict and possible appeal. This case presents some issues that have never been adjudicated. Trump's claim that future Presidential decisions would be unduly tempered by fear of vengeful opposite party prosecution after office has, imo, some validity.
This could be classified under 'be careful what you wish for'. That a president be prosecuted for actions taken that are part of his/her duties is one thing but what Trump is saying is that he can commit any acts totally unrelated to the office of the president. If the Supreme Court were to rule in his favor, that would mean 'crooked Joe Biden' would be able to do anything he wanted to Trump and not be prosecuted since he (Biden) is the current president.
Quote:
Trump's claim that future Presidential decisions would be unduly tempered by fear of vengeful opposite party prosecution after office has, imo, some validity
Trump has already stated publicly on a number of occasions that he would do this, so what's the complaint? That only he can engage in this kind of behavior but anyone else elected cannot?
Quote:
I think that if the election was 2-3 years off that they may have waited for a trial,
Could have been done except that Trump has been doing everything possible to delay the trial.
I'm mystified that the SCOTUS made such an odd decision. I suppose it's not surprising given the fact that they're a conservative bunch. Jack Smith now has a poor chance of trying Trump prior to November 5, 2024. I'm hopeful Trump will be convicted soon in New York.
Generally correct but time constraints are forcing their (SCOTUS) hand.
Time constraints would have been better-addressed by rejecting the case. It wouldn't surprise me if they affirm the appeals court decision. I expect Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson to affirm; Thomas and Alito to reject; uncertain about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. 4 had to grant cert to take the case.
Time constraints would have been better-addressed by rejecting the case. It wouldn't surprise me if they affirm the appeals court decision. I expect Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson to affirm; Thomas and Alito to reject; uncertain about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. 4 had to grant cert to take the case.
Years ago I believe that Gorsuch ruled against absolute immunity. So if he follows his own precedent then he should rule against Trump.
Time constraints would have been better-addressed by rejecting the case. It wouldn't surprise me if they affirm the appeals court decision. I expect Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson to affirm; Thomas and Alito to reject; uncertain about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. 4 had to grant cert to take the case.
Roberts is a snake-in-the-grass. He won't come down on the losing side in one of the most important cases in SCOTUS history. I look for either a 6-3 decision to reject or 5-4 to affirm.
Time constraints would have been better-addressed by rejecting the case. It wouldn't surprise me if they affirm the appeals court decision. I expect Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson to affirm; Thomas and Alito to reject; uncertain about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. 4 had to grant cert to take the case.
It's a nice link but Wehle essentially blames Garland for his lack of urgency in appointing a Special Prosecutor. Smith gathered huge amounts of 'testimony' over 2.5? years with a huge budget. Shouldn't the defense be given equal opportunity of discovery?
Last edited by mjolnir; 02-29-2024 at 02:45 PM.
Reason: Spelling
I am of two minds with regard to the recent shenanigans of the SCOTUS: Overturning Roe V. Wade and enabling a criminal president.
I am appalled that women have lost the right to make choices with their bodies and I find it awful that the SCOTUS is supporting Trump. On the other hand all of this is your fault. Voters elected republican presidents, congressmen, and senators. What did you think was going to happen?
If you're pissed off with the current state of affairs then vote the bastards out. It's your choice.
The SCOTUS has already ruled on "Article 2" many times in the past two hundred years. They concluded for example that he was immune from civil liability, but this is the first time that a political opponent has tried to put a President in prison. Nevertheless, the precedent is already clear.
The President is a one-person Branch of Government, given powers and responsibilities afforded to no other person. He must sometimes act when he has no "time" and "incomplete information." Yet he must sometimes act boldly. If another Branch, or a State or a County, could threaten him with prison for making a decision or a statement that they did not approve of, then of course they would do exactly that ... endlessly. And so it would be utterly impossible for the President to govern. Very soon, no one in his right mind would volunteer to hold the position, and "Article 2" would fall apart.
The Constitution does provide for "impeachment," requiring a super-majority of both Houses of Congress. And the SCOTUS has ruled that "successful impeachment" is a prerequisite for criminal prosecution. (The Constitution carefully states that impeachment is not a criminal indictment.) So, the President is not "above the law," but the entirely unique nature of his position is recognized.
There are over 2,000 counties in this country who can convene a Grand Jury. So, it only takes seven people and a zealous prosecutor. Each and every time the President made a decision, some Grand Jury somewhere would immediately indict him or her. At 12:01 PM on the end of the term, this President would promptly be arrested and would face more than 1,000 years in prison. You can easily see where this is going ... and, politics being what it is, there is no doubt that this is exactly what would occur.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 02-29-2024 at 07:42 PM.
I surmise that you already know “your intended outcome,” and all that I can say is: “be careful what you wish for.”
Donald Trump is “the ultimate evil.” Uh huh. Don’t you know how utterly bloodthirsty “politics” can be? Only one person at a time gets to be “President,” and he is surrounded by ever-envious hangers-on who simply want to take him down.
There would be no “Presidential Libraries.” There would only be prison cells equipped with tombs.
Going forward, it wouldn’t simply be any particular Officeholder: it would become The Office, Itself. Because now you need only eight people – seven jurors and one ambitious prosecutor – to “bring down a President.” And you can now multiply this over two thousand times. The desire would be irresistible. It would begin on day two of his-or-her term.
Every “podunk county, anywhere” would promptly jump on, and millions of “not-so-secret dollars” would be spent to “encourage” all of them. (Think: “color revolution.”)
Please don’t try to suggest to me that “actual human politics” is not PRECISELY like this …
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 03-01-2024 at 10:44 AM.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.