Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[MT15]

Trump’s request was entirely baseless - it’s wild that four justices think it had merit.

How is it wild? Those four are just showing us what they are - totally partisan. It’s to be expected. I’m half surprised Barrett didn’t join them. We will be stuck with a completely corrupt SC for decades by the end of Trump’s term.

 

[horse2H5]

How is it wild? Those four are just showing us what they are - totally partisan. It’s to be expected. I’m half surprised Barrett didn’t join them. We will be stuck with a completely corrupt SC for decades by the end of Trump’s term.

Do you not think votes like this shows that ACB calls it like she sees it? Isn't that what we want in a justice? Much like Kennedy?

 

[MT15]

Do you not think votes like this shows that ACB calls it like she sees it? Isn't that what we want in a justice? Much like Kennedy?

Yes, I just said I was half-surprised she didn’t join them. She still needs to prove to me she’s independent. This vote alone doesn’t do that.

 

[horse2H5]

Yes, I just said I was half-surprised she didn’t join them. She still needs to prove to me she’s independent. This vote alone doesn’t do that.

How many independent justices do you think sit on the bench?

 

[MT15]

How many independent justices do you think sit on the bench?

None of the GOP justices are IMO. There’s a sliding scale though. The Dem appointees aren’t super partisan IMO. They haven’t made up immunity rules for the president that appointed them, they haven’t taken rights away from people in this country. They haven’t valued corporations over people.

The last few GOP decisions have proven they are the most partisan group to sit on the bench in my lifetime anyway. And there is a history of similar decisions before Trump, but Trump with his 3 appts has certainly made partisan decisions more likely than before.

 

[horse2H5]

None of the GOP justices are IMO. There’s a sliding scale though. The Dem appointees aren’t super partisan IMO. They haven’t made up immunity rules for the president that appointed them, they haven’t taken rights away from people in this country. They haven’t valued corporations over people.

The last few GOP decisions have proven they are the most partisan group to sit on the bench in my lifetime anyway. And there is a history of similar decisions before Trump, but Trump with his 3 appts has certainly made partisan decisions more likely than before.

I don't think their decisions align with your thoughts. Kagan and Soto are 100% on the left, just like alito, thomas and gorsuch are on the right. Surprising Jackson has sided with the conservative judges twice.

The most independent according the record appears to be ACB, Roberts and Kavanaugh.

 

[MT15]

I don't think their decisions align with your thoughts. Kagan and Soto are 100% on the left, just like alito, thomas and gorsuch are on the right. Surprising Jackson has sided with the conservative judges twice.

The most independent according the record appears to be ACB, Roberts and Kavanaugh.

Kagan and Sotomayor are not political, unlike the two older conservatives Alito and Thomas are. They do have ideology but they are consistent.

Alito and Thomas will bend their ideology to support the political outcomes that they desire. When it’s convenient they claim to be originalists but when it’s not convenient they abandon it.

From AP:

“Barrett is rarely in dissent on a court that, relatively soon after she joined, overturned abortion rights, curbed Biden administration environmental efforts, broadened religious rights, expanded gun rights and ended affirmative action in college admissions.”

ACB hasn’t proven to be independent, not in my eyes. I used to consider Roberts to be somewhat independent, but he seems to have lost control of his court, and is allowing the corruption exposed to go unchecked. He’s a weak man unworthy of his station.

 

[horse2H5]

Kagan and Sotomayor are not political, unlike the two older conservatives Alito and Thomas are. They do have ideology but they are consistent.

Alito and Thomas will bend their ideology to support the political outcomes that they desire. When it’s convenient they claim to be originalists but when it’s not convenient they abandon it.

From AP:

“Barrett is rarely in dissent on a court that, relatively soon after she joined, overturned abortion rights, curbed Biden administration environmental efforts, broadened religious rights, expanded gun rights and ended affirmative action in college admissions.”

ACB hasn’t proven to be independent, not in my eyes. I used to consider Roberts to be somewhat independent, but he seems to have lost control of his court, and is allowing the corruption exposed to go unchecked. He’s a weak man unworthy of his station.

How is Kagan and Sotomayor not political? Can you name a decision where they had a conservative opinion?

 

[Dragon]

How is Kagan and Sotomayor not political? Can you name a decision where they had a conservative opinion?

Shouldn't the rulings of the Supreme Court be based on law rather than personal opinions? This is a fundamental principle that many conservatives seem to overlook. Instead, they use the Supreme Court as a tool to push through policies they lack the political support to implement. For example, they couldn’t secure a majority to enact an abortion ban, so they "stacked" the Court by appointing judges who align with their agenda. It’s a cheaper strategy with fewer political consequences, as they can shift the blame to the justices instead of facing voter backlash.

 

[horse2H5]

Shouldn't the rulings of the Supreme Court be based on law rather than personal opinions? This is a fundamental principle that many conservatives seem to overlook. Instead, they use the Supreme Court as a tool to push through policies they lack the political support to implement. For example, they couldn’t secure a majority to enact an abortion ban, so they "stacked" the Court by appointing judges who align with their agenda. It’s a cheaper strategy with fewer political consequences, as they can shift the blame to the justices instead of facing voter backlash.

Of course politicians appoint judges that favor their ideology. The 3 somewhat moderate judges where all appointed by republicans. When was the last time a Democrat put a moderate on the court?

How else would you overturn a supreme court ruling without going through the courts? Are you saying that congress had the ability to make a law sending abortion back to the states, despite the Roe decision?

 

[Dragon]

Of course politicians appoint judges that favor their ideology. The 3 somewhat moderate judges where all appointed by republicans. When was the last time a Democrat put a moderate on the court?

How else would you overturn a supreme court ruling without going through the courts? Are you saying that congress had the ability to make a law sending abortion back to the states, despite the Roe decision?

The MAGA ultra-conservatives knew there wasn’t a political majority against abortion. They understood they couldn’t pass a nationwide abortion ban through Congress, which holds the legislative power according to the Constitution. Congress is responsible for making laws, but the current Supreme Court has repeatedly overstepped its role by legislating from the bench.

By altering the "interpretation" of laws to fit an ultra-conservative agenda—an agenda that would never survive the legislative process—they’ve bypassed the constitutional system. This is a direct violation of the separation of powers meant to safeguard democracy.

Additionally, the principle that "no one is above the law" is enshrined in the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. Yet, conservative judges have effectively placed the president above the law by making rulings that grant immunity or unchecked powers. This interpretation isn’t grounded in the Constitution or any legislation; it’s a distortion to serve partisan goals.

 

[horse2H5]

The MAGA ultra-conservatives knew there wasn’t a political majority against abortion. They understood they couldn’t pass a nationwide abortion ban through Congress, which holds the legislative power according to the Constitution. Congress is responsible for making laws, but the current Supreme Court has repeatedly overstepped its role by legislating from the bench.

By altering the "interpretation" of laws to fit an ultra-conservative agenda—an agenda that would never survive the legislative process—they’ve bypassed the constitutional system. This is a direct violation of the separation of powers meant to safeguard democracy.

Additionally, the principle that "no one is above the law" is enshrined in the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. Yet, conservative judges have effectively placed the president above the law by making rulings that grant immunity or unchecked powers. This interpretation isn’t grounded in the Constitution or any legislation; it’s a distortion to serve partisan goals.

Wait, are you saying the Court overstepped in the Roe decision? Should this have been done by congress and not the courts in 1973? Are you saying that the current congress had the power to overturn Roe via legislative action?

 

[Dragon]

Wait, are you saying the Court overstepped in the Roe decision? Should this have been done by congress and not the courts in 1973? Are you saying that the current congress had the power to overturn Roe via legislative action?

They always had that right. But never the votes. But the constitution guaranties the right to privacy - and that is definitely not a right that will be uphold by states like Texas. when it comes to womens reproductive system. I really don't think that those who wrote the constitution could imagine the "big brother" laws that currently is in place in several conservative states

By the very definition of what the constitution says - Roe should never have been overturned

 

[horse2H5]

They always had that right. But never the votes. But the constitution guaranties the right to privacy - and that is definitely not a right that will be uphold by states like Texas. when it comes to womens reproductive system. I really don't think that those who wrote the constitution could imagine the "big brother" laws that currently is in place in several conservative states

By the very definition of what the constitution says - Roe should never have been overturned

MMMM, I don't know about that. Congress would 10th amendment issues. They may be able pull some type of funding bribery, but I don't think congress would be able to overturn Roe.

And according the law of our land, you are incorrect in your last statement. This is a states rights issue.

 

[Dragon]

MMMM, I don't know about that. Congress would 10th amendment issues. They may be able pull some type of funding bribery, but I don't think congress would be able to overturn Roe.

And according the law of our land, you are incorrect in your last statement. This is a states rights issue.

Anything that is in the bill of rights are federal and the right to privacy is in the bill of rights - so wrong.

 

[horse2H5]

Anything that is in the bill of rights are federal and the right to privacy is in the bill of rights - so wrong.

Could you show me something that says this in relation to congress overturning a constitutional ruling by the SC? I guess congress could amend the 10th amendment, but...

 

[Sendai]

Anything that is in the bill of rights are federal and the right to privacy is in the bill of rights - so wrong.

The Supreme Court Casey opinion abandoned the “right to privacy “ as a right to abortion.

The Dobbs opinion which is currently controlling states

“We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roeand Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

So it is exclusively a States issue.

Congress lacks the power to write legislation to either permit abortion or prohibit abortion.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: Abortion presents a profound moral question, and the Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. This decision overrules Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey.

supreme.justia.com

 

[Dragon]

I bet you that if the republican house implements a national abortion ban as Trump has promised, then it is suddenly legal according to the current SC