OsoCoreyell said:
C. Jordan said:
quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
We're in a really dark place. While this is a positive, it's shocking that all the men were more worried about what might happen than what did happen. In fact, they didn't even want to talk about the facts of the case. They wanted to live in hypotheticals. Alito in particular.
And all this stuff about originalism and textualism gets tossed when it's in the way of conservative activism. The Constitution plainly, plainly sees the President as liable for prosecution.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
You're so full of baloney. These guys are "in the tank for Trump" like the earth is above the sky. The Supreme Court is in the "what might happen" business, for all love. They're an apellate court. Trial courts are in the "what happened" business.
It is hilarious to see you criticize the current SCOTUS for its biases based upon your own biases.
You have no idea what you even stand for. For decades, the GOP cried foul about "activist judges" who tried to set policy by imposing "judge made" law rather than just applying the law as written. Toe v. Wade was exhibit 1-nowhere in the Constitution are the words "right to privacy" or "abortion" mentioned. It was an abomination and lacked any coherent reasoning at all based on that line of thinking.
Anton Scalia became a medium-sized deity by championing strict adherence to the idea that courts have a sacred duty to apply only the law as written. John Roberts gave us the catchphrase when he told the Senate that as chief justice it would be his job to do one thing only: call balls and strikes.
MAGA adherents often will list Trump's judicial selections as the most important accomplishment of his term. To be appointed and confirmed from 2017-2021, a Jude has to voice unwavering loyalty to those principles.
Saying it wasn't enough. To get a nomination. The nominee absolutely must have had his Federalist Society card showing years of oath to these ideas.
This week's arguments again revealed what an absolute con job it all is. There is no statute that confers immunity on a president. There is not a word in the Constitution about presidents being immune.
Calling '"balls and strikes" in this situation means applying the law to what actually happened without regard for the policy consequences of the decision.
Brett Kavanaugh's comment was MAGA lifting its skirt. The "conservative" justices want nothing to do with Scalia. They want to shape the future and are willing to do it regardless of the facts of the case.
We have had more judicial activism in the last three years than in the three decades before then. At best the whole thing is intellectually dishonest. It's really closer to a con job.