Does Trump ever do any jail time? (1 Viewer)

[Optimus Prime]

Everything I've seen and heard says that the split second Donald Trump is no longer president there will be flood of charges waiting for him

And if he resigns and Pence pardons him there are a ton of state charges as an understudy waiting in the wings if the fed charges can't perform

What do you think the likelihood of there being a jail sentence?

In every movie and TV show I've ever seen, in every political thriller I've ever read about a criminal and corrupt president there is ALWAYS some version of;

"We can't do that to the country",

"A trial would tear the country apart",

"For the nation to heal we need to move on" etc.

Would life imitate art?

Even with the charges, even with the proof the charges are true will the powers that be decide, "we can't do that to the country"?

 

[Taurus]

They love making empty threats. Those loons know that law would never pass Congress, much less get signed into law.

Bragg should call them on it. Publicly. Like, extremely publicly. Question their cojones, dare them, goad them and laugh in their faces. Making them look weak is how you defeat them. It's the ONE thing their base cannot abide.

 

[MT15]

Or more importantly, would be patently unconstitutional. There’s no basis in federal authority for such a law.

True, but the courts would have to enforce it.

I am seeing a lot of things that would have once been considered unconstitutional getting through, is what I meant. FL is doing something very close to actual government censorship, and Roe would like a word with the constitution. States are threatening to outlaw women traveling to states where abortion is legal, a court is considering banning a medication that the FDA properly approved some 20 years ago right now, which supposedly would stand even in states where abortion is legal.

The courts are struggling a bit with our rights at the moment, imo.

 

[Optimus Prime]

They love making empty threats. Those loons know that law would never pass Congress, much less get signed into law.

which I'm sure they know, red meat bill for their base to eat up and when it fails to pass they get to blame it all on the libs in the Senate and then get to say 'better vote red in 24 so we can pass this in the future'

 

[Huntn]

Jordan knows nothing about his actual job. I have read that in all his time in the House, he has never authored a piece of legislation. He’s a joke.

also, I like this take:

It’s hard to believe that there are members of the GOP who are stil trying to minimize the magnitude of the Jan6 insurrection for their Koolaid drinking base, “it was just a peaceful demonstration” so they can personally continue to strangle democracy and hold power.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Or more importantly, would be patently unconstitutional. There’s no basis in federal authority for such a law.

Federalism be damned. Give Jordan what he wants...

 

[DaveXA]

True, but the courts would have to enforce it.

I am seeing a lot of things that would have once been considered unconstitutional getting through, is what I meant. FL is doing something very close to actual government censorship, and Roe would like a word with the constitution. States are threatening to outlaw women traveling to states where abortion is legal, a court is considering banning a medication that the FDA properly approved some 20 years ago right now, which supposedly would stand even in states where abortion is legal.

The courts are struggling a bit with our rights at the moment, imo.

I’d say that Roe was never enshrined in the Constitution. Maybe it should have been. Florida needs an actual test case imo. The FDA could be a test case but I’m not sure that’s a Constitutional question.

There certainly are other issues with SCOTUS that warrant questions about how they’d rule on Constitutional questions, but I don‘t think there’s some deliberate move to ignore the Constitution.

 

[MT15]

I’d say that Roe was never enshrined in the Constitution. Maybe it should have been. Florida needs an actual test case imo. The FDA could be a test case but I’m not sure that’s a Constitutional question.

There certainly are other issues with SCOTUS that warrant questions about how they’d rule on Constitutional questions, but I don‘t think there’s some deliberate move to ignore the Constitution.

Have to agree to disagree with your take on Roe. There cannot be any more sacrosanct right than bodily autonomy. Without it, you cannot have liberty or the pursuit of happiness. (I know that’s the Declaration, lol). Evidently a lot of judges and justices have upheld Roe as a fundamental right in the past. Right to privacy from the government intruding in your health care.

 

[superchuck500]

True, but the courts would have to enforce it.

I am seeing a lot of things that would have once been considered unconstitutional getting through, is what I meant. FL is doing something very close to actual government censorship, and Roe would like a word with the constitution. States are threatening to outlaw women traveling to states where abortion is legal, a court is considering banning a medication that the FDA properly approved some 20 years ago right now, which supposedly would stand even in states where abortion is legal.

The courts are struggling a bit with our rights at the moment, imo.

The courts don’t enforce unconstitutional laws - they rule that they are unconstitutional and they remain that way, invalid, unless a higher court says they are. Roe was found not to have a basis in the Constitution and disagree as we may, it was always a bit suspect. Yes, what is constitutional is what the SCOTUS says it is but there is a framework and body of law there - it’s not arbitrary, notwithstanding the cynics. And no, it’s not always what we think is right but the vast majority of cases aren’t controversial as to constitutionality, it’s only the few in the margins that get all the attention.

The Florida social media censorship law was ruled unconstitutional by both the district court and the 11th Circuit and it is not in effect at this time. Because it is unconstitutional.

 

[Optimus Prime]

CNN) — A federal judge has decided that former Vice President Mike Pence must testify to a grand jury about conversations he had with Donald Trump leading up to January 6, 2021, according to multiple sources familiar with a recent federal court ruling.

But the judge said – in a ruling that remains under seal – that Pence can still decline to answer questions related to his actions on January 6 itself, when he was serving as president of the Senate for the certification of the 2020 presidential election, according to one of the sources…….

Mike Pence must testify about conversations he had with Donald Trump leading up to January 6, judge rules | CNN Politics

A federal judge has decided that former Vice President Mike Pence must testify to a grand jury about conversations he had with Donald Trump leading up to January 6, 2021, according to multiple sources familiar with a recent federal court ruling.

www.cnn.com

 

[DaveXA]

Have to agree to disagree with your take on Roe. There cannot be any more sacrosanct right than bodily autonomy. Without it, you cannot have liberty or the pursuit of happiness. (I know that’s the Declaration, lol). Evidently a lot of judges and justices have upheld Roe as a fundamental right in the past. Right to privacy from the government intruding in your health care.

I hear what you're saying, but codifying Roe was what needed to happen. It never did, and here we are. I agree with you that court rulings over the years tended towards upholding Roe until the recent overturning. Admittedly, I was wrong in thinking it wouldn't happen, but not codifying it I think just made it that much easier to overturn. Not sure what the answer is to fixing it now is though.

 

[MT15]

The courts don’t enforce unconstitutional laws - they rule that they are unconstitutional and they remain that way, invalid, unless a higher court says they are. Roe was found not to have a basis in the Constitution and disagree as we may, it was always a bit suspect. Yes, what is constitutional is what the SCOTUS says it is but there is a framework and body of law there - it’s not arbitrary, notwithstanding the cynics. And no, it’s not always what we think is right but the vast majority of cases aren’t controversial as to constitutionality, it’s only the few in the margins that get all the attention.

The Florida social media censorship law was ruled unconstitutional by both the district court and the 11th Circuit and it is not in effect at this time. Because it is unconstitutional.

My wording was clunky. But this court is prone to holding that a lot of things are unconstitutional that have been held as constitutional for decades right now. States are tripping over themselves to take away things we thought were rights because they know they have a decent chance of winning the day with the current SCOTUS.

I’m talking about the Florida laws governing what teachers can and cannot say in the classroom. And what corporations can and cannot say as employee training. Those are in effect right now, as far as I know. One state just passed a law barring interstate travel to obtain an abortion. How is that constitutional? As I said, a court is currently deciding whether a medication that was found to be safe and effective by the FDA decades ago should be banned even in states where abortion is legal. How could that be right?

I know the courts have done a good job of holding Trump in check, but they are letting us down as far as keeping government from interfering in our lives to follow religious doctrines. I’m deeply disappointed in a lot of the recent rulings.

 

[bird]

The main problem of constitutionality lies in the document itself and the judicial review process claimed by the SCOTUS in Marburg v Maddison (iirc, they misspelled Madison’s name).

The document forbids exactly 3 things: ex post facto laws, bills of attainder and religious tests for office. The bill of rights protects certain things as well. Beyond that the document is not “the law of the land” which is just a pretty phrase. The document establishes a government and governmental processes. It is foundational but nowhere near the final word on human activity. Thus ANY SCOTUS decision that deals with judicial review such as Roe is in fact the personal opinion of the justices. The list of actions done by people in their daily lives which are not “constitutional” meaning granted by the document is almost unlimited. Imo, btw, the Roe decision was a fourth amendment issue in terms of security of person. But let’s mush on. Basically, the constitution is silent on daily life. So judicial review by the SCOTUS means 330,000,000+ people will be beholden to the will, whims and belief structures of 5 people.

 

[efil4]

So judicial review by the SCOTUS means 330,000,000+ people will be beholden to the will, whims and belief structures of 5 people.

see 2nd amendment decision DC v Heller.

Totally agree- Scalia inserted in his decision, what HE believed the authors MEANT. And now its set. Said this very thing on the EE board in shooting thread.

 

[MT15]

And several of those people have conflicts of interest that they refuse to acknowledge in some recent cases. It’s no wonder that the SC is currently enjoying its lowest approval polling. People see the rulings in support of religious dogma - they aren’t even trying to hide it.

 

[FullMonte]

and to further show just how far Republicans are going to help Trump out, a report has come out that along with Marjorie Taylor Greene regularly communicating with Trump about what the GOP has planned regarding the potential legal issues Trump is facing, now it has come out that Elise Stefanik promised Trump that the republicans in congress would pursue an "aggressive response" to Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's potential indictment of Trump.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

and to further show just how far Republicans are going to help Trump out, a report has come out that along with Marjorie Taylor Greene regularly communicating with Trump about what the GOP has planned regarding the potential legal issues Trump is facing, now it has come out that Elise Stefanik promised Trump that the republicans in congress would pursue an "aggressive response" to Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's potential indictment of Trump.

The GOP is going to end up escalating this into something the nation cannot recover from.

 

[MT15]

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Thought they weren't meeting again until next week, but oh well...

Donald Trump indicted by Manhattan grand jury on more than 30 counts related to business fraud | CNN Politics

The charges are not publicly known at this time. Trump will likely be arraigned early next week, his defense attorney Joe Tacopina said.

www.cnn.com