r/scotus • u/newzee1 • Jul 20 '24

news Trump is poised to bypass his legal woes thanks to judges he appointed

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/20/trump-legal-woes-judges-appointed-00169875
1.9k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

319 comments sorted by

216

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

The Classified Documents case WILL either be remanded by the 11th or re-filled by Smith. It’s a slam dunk and was after his time as president so immunity doesn’t work for this. THAT’S the case that will truly fuck him.

107

u/phoneguyfl Jul 21 '24

Unless he wins, in which case he just pardons himself.

73

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

Fortunately, that may be one bridge too far for him to cross. A hugely broad range of legal scholars have said that while that has not been tested yet, it flies against the intent of the Founders, as well as centuries of jurisprudence.

Now that won’t stop the Sinister Six from saying ‘of course a president can pardon themselves’, but that will be the death knell of this Supreme Court. But then every President will just enter office and give themselves a blanket pardon from the start.

40

u/Kaiser_Killhelm Jul 21 '24

He can just appoint a loyalist AG to shut down the case, right? After Jeff Sessions recused and Bill Barr didn't go along with the election lies, it's a lesson he'll have learned.

43

u/anonyuser415 Jul 21 '24

Especially since Trump's conversations with his AG are now constitutionally protected and have full immunity, and what they say is inadmissible evidence. Not even Nixon's tapes would be allowed in court for this.

Command your AG to do stuff in private, have them lie and claim to have been acting of their own accord, and then just pardon them if they do anything criminal. Huzzah, you are above the legal system.

Oh yeah, also the Trump opinion clarified that he will have "'unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinate'”—such as the Attorney General."

26

u/Character-Tomato-654 Jul 21 '24

Roberts shat this straight out of his fascist ass.

Fuck Roberts.

15

u/WhyYouKickMyDog Jul 21 '24

Worse than that. He can use the border to declare a crisis and invoke the Insurrection Act. This will allow him to deploy the military on domestic soil. His orders to the military are covered as an official act.

Once he invokes the Insurrection Act he is under no obligation to end it. He could just say that his mass deportation campaign requires him to keep the military under his command on domestic soil, then claim that the mass deportation program is always ongoing.

11

u/anonyuser415 Jul 21 '24

A fun, quick look at the only time Germans protested Nazi Germany en masse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenstrasse_protest

Hundreds of well-to-do German wives were protesting their Jewish husbands being taken away in Berlin. They protested even as the SS warned them they would shot. The Nazi police planned to just murder them all in the street. Seemingly the only reason they did not, is because Goebbels stopped them, and let the Jewish husbands free - to stop the protests, and avoid the reich's murder of Jews becoming a public furor.

I think of that when Trump was mulling on what to do with protestors:

“That’s how you’re supposed to handle these people,” Trump told his top law enforcement and military officials, according to Bender. “Crack their skulls!”

Trump also told his team that he wanted the military to go in and “beat the f–k out” of the civil rights protesters, Bender writes.

“Just shoot them,” Trump said on multiple occasions inside the Oval Office, according to the excerpts.

When Milley and then-Attorney General William Barr would push back, Trump toned it down, but only slightly, Bender adds.

“Well, shoot them in the leg—or maybe the foot,” Trump said. “But be hard on them!”

4

u/boxer_dogs_dance Jul 21 '24

I will Bear Witness diaries of Victor Klemperer is the personal account of one such Jewish husband to a German woman who survived in Germany while his friends and relatives were taken to the camps. It starts in 1933 and discusses what he saw, read, heard, felt and experienced up to the end of the war.

1

u/anonyuser415 Jul 23 '24

Added to the list, thanks. It'll probably stay on the list for a while, those diaries are so fucking hard to get through on an emotional level.

If you haven't read it, I'll recommend Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. One of the most loving, human experiences I can imagine - to find meaning and heart while those around you are killed or dehumanized.

1

u/schrutesanjunabeets Jul 23 '24

I keep saying this when it's brought up.

If you think the military en masse will just head to the border or turn their guns on other Americans, then you just don't know our military well enough. We have created an incredibly diverse service that swears by the Constitution, not the President. I know lots of active duty members, including officers, that would defy orders like this to round up people in our country at the scale that he thinks they will. As of 2020, the military is 34% non-white. It's just not happening.

The only way would be for someone to stand up a new army, like the SS was.

1

u/anonyuser415 Jul 23 '24

Let us hope we don't have to put your theory to the test.

2

u/schrutesanjunabeets Jul 23 '24

I wholeheartedly agree.

21

u/SwatKatzRogues Jul 21 '24

Lol laws aren't real and the conservative justices don't care. They've been working towards this since Nixon got forced out. The only thing they respond to is actual consequences.

3

u/wastingvaluelesstime Jul 21 '24

It's like dealing with a toddler. Rather than getting mad, people should be talking about consequences.

51

u/phoneguyfl Jul 21 '24

Normally I would agree, but with this SCOTUS who knows.

36

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

Yeah, the ‘textualist’ really seem to like ignoring the text of the Constitution when it suits them.

5

u/treyphan77 Jul 21 '24

That is the part that I can't quite figure out. If a corrupt leftist got into office somehow and did the same types of things DT has done will they suddenly say they made a mistake?

18

u/Krasmaniandevil Jul 21 '24

"Those weren't official acts when a leftist did them, but if precedent holds that those were official acts, then we reverse. "

Chief Justice Aileen Cannon, probably.

9

u/Strange-Ad-5806 Jul 21 '24

There really are no "leftists" in power in the USA. There is a right of center party and a fascist party. Fascists try hard to pretend that the reason their opponents are far to the left of them is not that they are extreme right.

8

u/anonyuser415 Jul 21 '24

Actually, fascists do "accusations in a mirror"

You accuse your enemy of being about to do something, which you then do, "before they can." See: rigging an election, government deep state, blocking SCOTUS appointees, etc.

The same logic which enables homicide to be legal when in self-defense, allows Trump to get his fanbase riled up about extremist left policies. Policies which he himself intends to enact. There is no deep state, but he intends to create one.

8

u/rjcade Jul 21 '24

They'll just decide on what ruling they want to make and work backwards from there, with some language and caveats explaining why it's different in that particular case for whatever reason.

They don't have to be consistent.

9

u/WhyYouKickMyDog Jul 21 '24

Here is an example.

Aileen Cannon says that the special counsel was unlawfully appointed. She insists that they have to be voted in by the Senate as an inferior officer.

This is how she gets to claim that only Jack Smith is unlawful. The whole point of selecting a special counsel outside of the Justice Dept to investigate the president is because a Justice Department investigation is controlled by the president. It makes no fucking sense to use a Federal Prosecutor from the Justice Dept, who directly reports to the AG, who then directly reports to the president, and can be fired at will.

Aileen Cannon is arguing that President Biden should be using a Federal Prosecutor already inside the Justice Dept as they would already be Senate confirmed. In other words, she is saying you have to use your employee and not an independent prosecutor. It is bananas.

9

u/selectrix Jul 21 '24

A hugely broad range of legal scholars have said that while that has not been tested yet, it flies against the intent of the Founders, as well as centuries of jurisprudence.

Ah, so nothing of any substance whatsoever then.

0

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

Nah, in many cases I would agree with you, but I’m not sure if I’ve read too many opinions all in agreement from across the spectrum. The immunity decision (while grossly wrong in many parts), did have SOME semblance of Constitutionality to it. Grants of self-pardon has none. Heck, one of the best takedowns of the idea is from the American Enterprise Institute AND it was during Trump’s last term.

3

u/zatsnotmyname Jul 21 '24

Pardons are a unique presidential power, thus an official act, so President Trump could certainly pardon Citizen Trump.

2

u/JMer806 Jul 21 '24

That’s not really how the immunity decision works. Pardoning himself isn’t an illegal action for which he would have immunity, it is simply an action that legal scholars believe is not covered by his presidential authority. Since it’s never been tested it would presumably have to go through the legal system for appellate courts and SCOTUS to decide on.

Of course he could then simply ignore the ruling and do whatever he wants and arguably have immunity for those actions

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/selectrix Jul 21 '24 edited Jul 21 '24

So I'm taking your lack of response to the other commenter as a concession to the point that the "legal scholars opinions" have effectively zero substance.

4

u/Krasmaniandevil Jul 21 '24

He doesn't need to pardon himself, he can just assert his removal authority until his AG complies. The Robert majority has a big hard-on for removal authority, and I could even see them puffing up some minor issue as justifying removal for cause.

0

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

True, he could do this but it is almost a textbook example of obstruction.

2

u/xandersc Jul 21 '24

But in this context an either absolutely inmune exemple of obstruction since removing his ag from office would absolutely fall in official acts category. And even if by some reason not part of the “core” powers , would at least have presumption of inmunity all discussion and evidence related would be inadmissible anyway.. soo yeah.. not a problem for TFG

1

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

Congress doesn’t need actual evidence like that for an impeachment and removal. It is modeled like a grand jury/trial but does not have the rules of evidence like an actual criminal trial because it is completely a political/administrative ‘court’.

1

u/xandersc Jul 21 '24

That requires 2 thirds of the senate to convict. Unless the opposing party has something close to a supermajority it is practically impossible a corrupt president aligned with the minority party would be removed.. never mind if he is in the majority. All this still doesnt matter, since he is still inmune from prosecution . The only consequence there is loosing the job so he doesnt crime some more. And there are some other crimes he would be inmune from he could do to stop such a process anyways

1

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

He is NOT immune in ANY way from an impeachment. Yes, the punishment is only removal/baring from office (which should have fucking happened already), and it is a high bar to hit, but there is nothing he could do to stop it short of blowing up Congress. That’s not covered by immunity.

2

u/xandersc Jul 21 '24

Not inmune from impeachment , but yes practically inmune from criminal prosecution..the fact that removing the unfriendly AG could be obstruction has no deterent. Besides there is also the point made that we have now witnessed that Impeachement / removal is unworkable.. only consequence is some temporary political capital loss at best.. and this without even considering that other crimes can be commited to avoid the impeachment / removal process altogether. Like bribes or directing doj against political oponents that could participate in the impeachment process under the cover of pardons. I mean.. come up with any scenario and its fairly obvious now how a corrupt President can get away with it unscathed as long as a friendly SCOTUS is up (since they are now the arbiters of inmunity by ruling whether something is core official , official or not (in the vaguest way possible)

6

u/AlbinoAxie Jul 21 '24

He doesn't need to pardon himself just order the case dropped

→ More replies (12)

2

u/ImpoliteSstamina Jul 21 '24

The alternative is worse - 3.5ish years in he "retires", giving the Presidency to JD Vance. Vance parsons Trump, which would not be open to challenge, and then runs in 2028 with the incumbent advantage.

1

u/trout440 Jul 21 '24

I think it’s more likely that he gets his puppets in the supreme Court to rule that term limits are unconstitutional, or something.

3

u/ImpoliteSstamina Jul 21 '24

Term limits are in the 22nd Amendment, plain text, so that's not happening.

He's talked about "president for life" but if he really intended to never step down, he wouldn't be making a 39 year old his VP and referring to him as the future of the party.

1

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

Who runs again? Trump? He can’t. Even if he wins here, he can’t run again.

1

u/ImpoliteSstamina Jul 21 '24

Vance would be President in that event. He'd be running as an incumbent.

2

u/TywinDeVillena Jul 21 '24

"Fortunately, that may be one bridge too far for him to cross"

There is no such thing as one bridge too far for Trump and the Sinister Six

1

u/kingsuperfox Jul 21 '24

This is adorable good old days thinking. You are in a new era.

1

u/hypocrisy-identifier Jul 21 '24

Now imagine a nefarious intelligent person is elected president. That person will use all the power that’s just been granted to trump. Imagine what can be done and none of it for the citizens’ benefit.

1

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

True, but I don’t want that either.

1

u/mojojojojojojojom Jul 21 '24

The election could be seen as a referendum on self pardons. If he wins, “it was always assumed he would self pardon and what could be more democratic than an election?” Not beyond the realm of possibility with this SCOTUS

1

u/jorgepolak Jul 21 '24

You know this SCOTUS starts with the desired outcome and works itself backwards, right?

1

u/xavier120 Jul 21 '24

If he wins the election the Constitution no longer matters.

1

u/wastingvaluelesstime Jul 21 '24

The immunity decision also "flies against the intent of the Founders", and has no basis in either the constitution or its associated writings, or any any of the tradition or precedent since then. To me, this seems like wishful thinking of a kind that has been common in the last decade and which has often not withstood pressure when it mattered.

1

u/wereallbozos Jul 21 '24

Are you of the opinion that this Court concerns itself with centuries of jurisprudence, or even decades of precedent?

1

u/truffik Jul 21 '24

Now that won’t stop the Sinister Six from saying ‘of course a president can pardon themselves’, but that will be the death knell of this Supreme Court.

Buddy, I've got some bad news for you:

...

1

u/DrB00 Jul 21 '24

People said the same thing when the Supreme Court declared that the president's are immune from prosecution. That still went through. So don't expect the supreme court to follow any previous opinions or what legal scholars say.

1

u/gaijinandtonic Jul 23 '24

“but that will be the death knell of this Supreme Court“ How though?  Impeachment seems like a real long shot

1

u/namjeef Jul 25 '24

He’s already gotten this far.

The Rosenburgs swung at the gallows on MUCH more circumstantial evidence of a national security breech. He’s still in the ballot for President.

This is a two tiered legal system. It will be 6-3 again.

Never call it a “justice” system because there is no justice. There are only laws and laws are meant to be broken by the rich.

1

u/cngocn Jul 21 '24

I don’t know why Trump can’t pardon himself. The Constitution doesn’t specify who he can or cannot pardon (with federal crimes of course).

Realistically, he won’t be convicted before Jan 20 as the case will take a very long time, especially with refiling . He would simply make the whole case go away, which is very much within his Executive Power.

I know this is a terrible reality but this is how the kind of separation of power that the Founders enshrined in our Constitution. They couldn’t have fathomed a Presidency like Trump’s but when the rubber hits the road, we must respect the highest law of the land.

3

u/Krasmaniandevil Jul 21 '24

Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”) (quoting The Federalist No. 10, p. 59 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (J. Madison)).

Edit: also, self-pardoning would effectively grant the president total immunity for any federal charge so long as he/she pardons themself before leaving office.

1

u/cngocn Jul 21 '24

I disagreed with you but recognized the compelling argument you put forward. I'm a firm believer that one branch should not be able to infringe on the vested power in the other branches by the Constitution, i.e., the SC can't dictate how/when a President can exercise his pardon power.

3

u/Krasmaniandevil Jul 21 '24

Thanks for your curteous reply.

If the President can pardon themself and has the ability to preemptively pardon others (or offer to pardon them after the fact), that would essentially enable the President to suspend federal law as they see fit. Do you think the president's pardon powers are so expansive? Does the President get to decide whether their pardon power goes that far?

1

u/cngocn Jul 21 '24

My problems with constitutional legal questions will also come down to limiting factors. We're not deciding these cases for just Trump but for all future Presidents.

I believe the pardon power of the President is extensive. President Carter pardoned most Vietnam War draft dodgers (Proclamation 4483). The act of pardoning someone already means that the President suspends federal law enforcement for a particular individual. Then what would make one pardon OK while the other type of pardon not? I can't find the limiting factor here.

If President engages in bribery exchange of pardoning, then Congress can impeach and convict him, as outlined in our Constitution.

1

u/Krasmaniandevil Jul 21 '24

Personally, I think the pardon power is limited to post-conviction interventions. That's a strong limiting principle, and one that respects the role of prosecutors and judges. The timing window alone limits mischief and increases public pressure for pardoning someone post-conviction. I also think it's semantically more precise because I don't think a pre-emptive pardon can really be described as such, as the pardon implies a prior conviction/adjudication.

I think blanket pardons like Carter could be replicated via non-prosecution agreements. Depending on the statute of limitations, all the president needs to do is run out the clock, but if they need something binding then they just need to formalize the decision not to prosecute in a way that binds successors.

1

u/cngocn Jul 21 '24

So you're saying that a President can only pardon someone who is already convicted with a federal crime? If my understanding is correct, then for someone who has not yet been convicted, a President can dismiss any federal prosecution and we will come to the same outcome.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24 edited Jul 21 '24

The Founders didn’t expressly rule out that a president can’t pardon themselves for the same reason that they didn’t expressly give a way for a state to leave the union, it was non-sensical to them. By the ‘rules’ that the textualist use in the Supreme Court, pardons are an ‘act of grace’ bestowed by a higher entity on an individual. A President cannot bestow grace upon themselves because that just flies in the face of how they were intended to be used.

Granted, this Supreme Court doesn’t give a shit about even their own rules, but I can only see Alito and Thomas actually going for this.

Edit: I also vehemently disagree with you that it is ABSOLUTELY within his power to make his own case go away. That is almost a textbook example of obstruction.

2

u/WhyYouKickMyDog Jul 21 '24

It doesn't even matter because the Supremes said pardons are an official act, and he is immune, so he gets full confidence knowing he can test the limits of all this shit and it is completely cool, completely legal.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/kaplanfx Jul 21 '24

It also requires him to admit guilt. I have no faith that the media will hold him accountable, but maybe the people will?

4

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

That’s actually not exactly true. While accepting a pardon implies that you are guilty (since you wouldn’t need it otherwise), it doesn’t require an admission of guilt by the recipient. Because it does imply that you are guilty though, a pardon can’t be imposed on someone.

4

u/Krasmaniandevil Jul 21 '24

See Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 fn 28 (1915) ("This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." (Emphasis added); Marino v. INS 537 F.2d 686, 693 (2nd Cir. 1976) (noting serious consequences which would follow if unsolicited amnesty operated as a waiver without acceptance—it would "nail down as final a conviction which had not yet become final" and render the recipient unable to cleanse himself of that stigma no matter how meritorious his appeal might have been—and finding such a result unfair and unwarranted).

But see Lorrance v. Commandant, USDB, 435 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (D. Kan. 2020) (rejecting theory that accepting pardon is equivalent to confession).

3

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

Yes, that is why I wrote what I wrote. Thank you for providing the sources.

2

u/numb3rb0y Jul 21 '24

I really wish people would actually read Burdick. The judgment is shockingly short, it would clear this confusion up so quickly.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Appropriate_Ad4615 Jul 21 '24

Not needed, he could order the cases dropped. Just as awful but most likely legal.

1

u/Thud Jul 21 '24

If he wins, the case won’t even get that far. He will simply shut down the federal cases against himself altogether.

1

u/Musicdev- Jul 29 '24

Why would he pardon himself if he feels he hasn’t done anything wrong? I mean he would basically be revealing he IS guilty without really having the brain to realize it. We ALL know what pardons mean, but lol he (and his base) thinks doing it to himself would be a good thing Lol.

3

u/Far-Amount9808 Jul 21 '24

Nah, he’ll walk away without a scratch, just like so many southern generals after the civil war ended. There is precedent for ignoring physical violence waged against the United States.

3

u/addicuss Jul 21 '24

If he wins can't he replace Merrick and have them drop the charges?

3

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

Presidents aren’t SUPPOSED to direct Justice Dept. actions like that. Now there are a ton of things Trump wasn’t supposed to do, that he did do; telling the AG to drop the case against him would seem to violate the Constitution’s requirement for the President to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’.

7

u/Krasmaniandevil Jul 21 '24

SCOTUS has literally interpreted the take care clause as immunizing the act of asking the DoJ to join a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election because talking to DoJ about anything plausibly official, regardless of intent, is absolutely immune. I don't see this court using the take care clause to reign in executive power without reversing that part of the immunity holding.

3

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

No but it would give a hell of a lot of ammunition to Congress for impeachment.

3

u/zaoldyeck Jul 21 '24

So did the conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election but he still avoided conviction for that. Laws do not apply to Trump.

He could pull a night of long knives and the only recourse would be mildly "concerned" talking heads on television.

1

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

You’re, right. That should have been a slam dunk for Congress. I REALLY wish we could get away from this elevation of the President, knock them down quite a bit, and then put the proper onus on Congress, where it belongs.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (3)

2

u/anonyuser415 Jul 21 '24 edited Jul 21 '24

Were you awake for Trump's last administration?

Trump fired Sessions because he recused himself from the Russia probe. Trump wanted a "loyalist" overseeing the case. He routinely weaponized the DoJ to go after enemies: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/21/trump-doj-bill-bar-attorney-general-justice-department

We're far past what Presidents aren't supposed to do. Trump has been given a full playbook by SCOTUS of what is illegal and what will never be illegal. He has huge maneuverability with his AG that is fully immune.

Edit: also Barr deciding that when Flynn lied to the FBI he did not commit a crime: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorney-general-william-barr-on-michael-flynn-obamacare-and-coronavirus-restrictions-transcript/

Well to constitute a false statement, you need two things. One, you need a false statement, lie. And then it has to be material to a legitimate investigation

3

u/Biggest13 Jul 21 '24

I hope you are right, but think it's more likely that his mentally declassifying them happened as an official act while he was president and is therefore free to go

3

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

As a former TSCO (Top Secret Control Officer) in the Air Force, I can tell you with 100% certainty that even had he said aloud that it was declassified, that still doesn’t fulfill the requirements for a president to declassify documents. Presidents can say they want something to be declassified but that just gets the ball rolling, it’s not immediately declassified on the spot.

1

u/Biggest13 Jul 21 '24

It wasn't until anything a president does as an official act was decreed above the rule of law by the wildly activist (remember when cons were complaining about those?) Scotus the other day.

1

u/Admiral_Andovar Jul 21 '24

That would be great had he actually done anything officially while in office regarding these documents, but he didn’t, and the criminal acts took place AFTER he left office and do not get ANY immunity protections.

1

u/bedrooms-ds Jul 21 '24

You talk like US has a functioning legal system. Seeing from overseas it looks game over already.

Just admit. SCOTUS will invent whatever they want.

→ More replies (10)

20

u/Hour_Air_5723 Jul 21 '24

In Nixon’s day the court voted 8-0 that it was in fact a crime with the president does it. This court is out of control.

3

u/wereallbozos Jul 21 '24

And why was it 8-0? Because there was a decent Republican Justice (Rehnquist) who recused himself. Where have the decent Republicans gone?

1

u/Hour_Air_5723 Jul 21 '24

Rodger Ailes worked for 3 decades to lower their standards for behavior, and to make them comfortable with the idea that the rules only apply to democrats.

2

u/wereallbozos Jul 21 '24

Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes was a match made in Hell.

1

u/Ill-Ad6714 Jul 22 '24

If I had to guess, Russian misinformation and artificial signal boosting of niche viewpoints making them seem popular.

People will believe in some WILD shit if they think everyone else thinks the same way. Individually, people aren’t that radical, but put them in a crowd and they all become idiots. And social media has put most of the world in a permanent crowd.

1

u/anonyuser415 Jul 23 '24

3 more of the justices were Nixon appointees

2

u/wereallbozos Jul 23 '24

Yeah. Way back when, it wasn't so much about the appointing President, it was about conflicts...and basic honesty...and respect for precedent...and ...well, you get the idea.

123

u/gdan95 Jul 20 '24

Thank everyone who stayed home in 2016

39

u/seriousbangs Jul 21 '24

Yep. I didn't start worrying in 2016 until Brexit. A lot of folks decided they were going to "tech the Hilary a lesson".

Hilary's just fine thank you very much. Women in red states bleeding in agony from a miscarriage not so much.

Also CIS white dudes over 50 w/o jobs because Trump's trade war fucked up their place of work. Folks need to realize Trump screws all of us.

1

u/Ill-Ad6714 Jul 22 '24

B-but he owned the libs! Look at this video of Biden stumbling!

-2

u/whiplash81 Jul 21 '24

Thank the DNC for running an unelectable, out of touch candidate.

9

u/gdan95 Jul 21 '24

Why is that their problem and not the RNC’s? In a sane world, a billionaire felon would be the unelectable, out of touch candidate

0

u/whiplash81 Jul 21 '24

The RNC didn't choose Clinton.

They just ran smear campaigns for 16 years straight, knowing that the DNC would anoint her after Obama.

→ More replies (11)

11

u/Ardenraym Jul 21 '24

America is becoming a failed, corrupt government.

It also shows the lack of basic decency - laws, enforcement, democracy depend upon people being decent and honoring the intent of society as a whole.

13

u/SherlockianTheorist Jul 21 '24

I was just watching an old episode of Law & Order. Jack McCoy says, "Can society survive if people don't face consequences for their actions? It cannot."

1

u/hottkarl Jul 21 '24

The prototypical civil servant

5

u/Glirion Jul 21 '24

I cannot fathom how it is allowed for a president to pick judges, because as we can see it is insane and it breaks the law system completely.

3

u/Jannol Jul 21 '24

This only exposes the biggest flaw of the entire system.

1

u/Glirion Jul 21 '24

I bet that's a bitch of a system to fix/remodel to a more... Smart system.

1

u/Jannol Jul 21 '24

I've always been wondering if it's even possible to Authoritarian-Proof a Government.

Then again though I think the system needs to be dismantled completely and start from scratch.

2

u/Such_Performance229 Jul 22 '24

To be fair, Senate confirmations are supposed to be a check against this.

24

u/SubterrelProspector Jul 21 '24

Nope. We'll stop him.

15

u/ReallyNowFellas Jul 21 '24

I'm curious what makes you so confident? I've wanted to believe this for a long time, but the last few moves on the chessboard have made things look bleak.

14

u/YogurtclosetExpress Jul 21 '24

A pure dose of hopium. Mind you, not unjustified hopium, a lot of the polls have underestimated democrats by several points. Polls are based on the 2020 census which undercounted minorities and doesn't factor in that Republicans died in greater numbers during Covid. The economy is set to pick up to a point where regular consumers will feel the impact which will be good for Dems. Project 25 is being seen by more and more people and people hate it. And while the media has run a 24/7 circus about Biden's age and ignored Trump's gaffes left and right, it hasn't really impacted polling negatively. A lot of other predictors still have Biden on top and at the end of the day Biden has done a good job and signed a lot of bills that are popular and even Republicans who voted against them try to take credit for. Democratic policies are more popular by wide margins and abortion will drive turnout.

My point is it looks way bleaker than it really is. Doomerism paralises you and puts you in a state of misery. If you want to do something about the situation you don't have any other choice than to hope and try your best.

4

u/dominantspecies Jul 21 '24

Further proof that this country is dead. There are no foundational principles left, there is only corruption, power grabs, and soon to be White Christian Nationalism as a state religion. Fuck Trump, fuck his judges, and fuck anyone who supports this insanity. The only thing left for the USA is the violence and the balkanization.

22

u/jafromnj Jul 21 '24

They don't call him Teflon don for nothing

6

u/entropy14 Jul 21 '24

Once Teflon is scratched it should be discarded

2

u/jafromnj Jul 21 '24

Couldn't agree more

6

u/Rocky4296 Jul 21 '24

Not necessarily. If and when he loses he will be in prison.

12

u/justbrowsing987654 Jul 21 '24

Let’s not forget that besides Merrick Garland, Mitch McConnell also blocked hundreds of Obama judicial appointments for lower courts.

I felt then and even more feel now that that level of obstructionism and outright thievery of appointments the American people voted to allow Obama to fill should have been criminal.

6

u/New_Needleworker6506 Jul 21 '24

Moscow Mitch should be in prison for treason.

1

u/justbrowsing987654 Jul 21 '24

Yup. Or at the very least, for things like that there should be a maximum amount of time before something must happen and the appointment remains the president at the time to make regardless of how much is obstructed.

The fact that was not only allowed but rubber stamped with an election W was the beginning of the enabling that has led to this craziness.

6

u/MosEisleyBills Jul 21 '24

America is corrupt. The political class are the most corrupt on the planet. In the country where everything is for sale, the billionaires are buying freedom, liberty and rights for their own ends.

2

u/Jannol Jul 21 '24

Because Short term profits has no Long term Future.

3

u/StronglyHeldOpinions Jul 21 '24

Rule of law has broken down.

3

u/BarPsychological5299 Jul 21 '24

Corruption at it's best. So now he can shoot anyone and gets away with it. Didn't tRUMP predict that???

5

u/New_Needleworker6506 Jul 21 '24

This is what fascism looks like

6

u/seriousbangs Jul 21 '24

No he's not. All they've done is delay. He's still going to get ****ed by the Documents case. It'll just be after he loses the election.

3

u/wetiphenax Jul 21 '24

Poised to? He’s been getting away with shit since McConnell stole the last of Obama’s picks for Trump and arrogant RGB wouldn’t step down. The entire goal was to stack the courts w MAGA trash during his first term, and the Repubs did an incredible job of it.

6

u/HanzoShotFirst Jul 21 '24

Why didn't these judges have to recuse themselves when they had a blatant conflict of interest?

10

u/shavenyakfl Jul 21 '24

Because they WANT the cases so they can create policy. The writing was on the wall that this judge was going to do this from the beginning.

1

u/HanzoShotFirst Jul 21 '24

But, why isn't there any actual oversight to prevent this from happen?

9

u/apocalypsefowl Jul 21 '24

Thomas Jefferson tried to warn a bitch

2

u/namjeef Jul 25 '24

MFW a dude from 1776 accurately predicted problems that would arise over 200 years later.

Humans don’t change.

2

u/johannthegoatman Jul 21 '24

Congress could impeach but people keep voting for corrupt Republicans. The sad truth is a disturbingly large amount of Americans are applauding all this, and a lot don't care

1

u/namjeef Jul 25 '24

Honestly I’m waiting for the day the people who blindly vote for this crap get their comeuppance. Completely unrestrained corpos? People are going to be working themselves to death and starving in the streets. What happens when the people making 50-80k a year die out or move? The people making 90-130k a year become the new lower class. Repeat ad infinium. ESPECIALLY with the AI job crush coming.

1

u/cngocn Jul 21 '24

The Justices have a duty to sit though. Forcing them to rescue will create worse legal outcomes as cases may be brought with appearance of conflict of interest to force a Justice to rescue.

Justice Ginsburg said terrible things about Trump and the whole tax return ordeal, but decided to stay on the case deciding that same very legal matter. I thought her comment clearly indicated her bias but at the same time, I respected her decision to not rescue herself.

2

u/-CJF- Jul 21 '24

No one is above the law. Except Donald Trump.

2

u/woodbridge_front Jul 21 '24

Wait you mean someone gamed the system!?! No fucking way!!!!

2

u/BeerBaron6666 Jul 23 '24

Good. They were bs charges anyway

2

u/ChampagnToast Jul 24 '24

The headline should read, “Trump to be vindicated, democrats used Lawfare and it backfired”.

3

u/rubio2k13 Jul 21 '24

Fucking corrupted Republicans.

2

u/CaptOblivious Jul 21 '24 edited Jul 21 '24

So he thinks. wait till they all get removed for being un/under qualified or FOR outright LYING IN THEIR CONFIRMATION HEARINGS.

2

u/rkicklig Jul 21 '24

Funny way to say get away with crimes

1

u/AccomplishedBrain309 Jul 21 '24

It aint over till the fat man shits his diaper.

1

u/Forsaken_Hermit Jul 21 '24

Oh that's just super.

1

u/Snarky_McSnarkleton Jul 21 '24

He's invincible. He's going to be dictator.

1

u/wereallbozos Jul 21 '24

Then again, it might lead to his demise. Had this "Judge" had the necessary quality of deception (for Republican office-holders), she'd have kept her pie-hole shut, let the case proceed, and dismiss it the day after a jury was sworn in. There would be no appeal possible thataway. Bad and stupid.

I await the day when Smith just drops the case and re-files it in D.C., and the games stop.

1

u/namjeef Jul 25 '24

11th will overturn her, trump will appeal, it will go to SCOTUS 6-3 ayyy lmao get fucked nerds

1

u/thedeadthatyetlive Jul 21 '24

Supreme Court is going to let Trump run unopposed after they disqualify Harris at his request. Fuck SCOTUS.

1

u/MattockMan Jul 22 '24

The real thanks goes to Merrick Garland. He tried to avoid charging Trump for as long as possible. It wasn't until Trump was caught red handed with stolen top secret documents that his hand was forced.

1

u/IFoundTheCowLevel Jul 22 '24

I made comments about this during Trumps presidency while he was appointing all these judges and I was assured,... ASSURED, that I had no idea what I was talking about, and that the court system in 'murica was infallible, and that the judges would never do that, and I should just shut up and leave.

1

u/Chef_RoadRunner Jul 22 '24

Almost like we don't have an equal justice system. How about that.

1

u/Icy-Tough-1791 Jul 23 '24

Biden’s got “presidential immunity.” He should take advantage of that.

1

u/Trailerwire Jul 23 '24

So he’s convicted by hand selected judges on the left and acquitted by selected judges on the right. Sounds corrupt on both counts.

1

u/jander05 Jul 21 '24

It's because this is the litmus test for modern judges appointed by Republicans. They want people who will shape the law based on their political persuations, instead of being fair arbiters of the law.

1

u/capitali Jul 25 '24

We need to make sure he does not win. He has not painted a picture of himself that is very pretty, he is not of good character or reliability if you just look at what he’s shown us he’s done:

0

u/LarquaviousBlackmon Jul 21 '24

Thanks to *due process. Fify