2024 Election - Trump vs. Harris, important downballot

[Breccia]

Trump has legal culpability on generally acknowledged crimes. It's just that he ate a sham process and a grave miscarriage of justice before the others came to trial.

That sounds like something an appeals court gets to decide, not a random OP ED. At the bare minimum, 12 jurors and a judge disagree, and their duties outweigh your handwaving by eleventy trilion percent.

[Mekh]

I think we're going to disagree on this. I don't think Democrats would be cheering for justice being served if Trump were found not guilty, or the jury was hung. I think it's really Democrats cheering the result, and ignoring the legal deficiencies.

"People cheered when Jeffrey Dahmer was found guilty! Bet they wouldn't have cheered if he'd walked!" is a new level of retardation even from you.

[s_bushido]

"People cheered when Jeffrey Dahmer was found guilty! Bet they wouldn't have cheered if he'd walked!" is a new level of retardation even from you.

Listen, if I can't pretend that being obviously guilty is exactly the same as not being a criminal, what's even the point of trolling the forums?

[Breccia]

"People cheered when Jeffrey Dahmer was found guilty! Bet they wouldn't have cheered if he'd walked!" is a new level of retardation even from you.

Indeed, and let's not forget, the American justice system gives every accused every possible chance. You get unremovable rights. You get a lawyer. You only need reasonable doubt. It takes a 12/12 verdict to convict. Any one of those issues broken and a criminal goes free. It takes all of those to line up for a criminal to be convicted.

Yelling "legal deficiencies" doesn't make it true. Team Trump has lost every legal challenge so far. You would think something as obvious as "this isn't a felony" would have come up, if it was true. It didn't. And I don't think it's going to come up in the appeals court, either. I don't think you wait until the trial, then the judgement, then the appeal to say "this charge was wrong the whole time". That sounds like a pre-trial motion that would have been handled earlier. Here's an article on the topic.

That raises the question of which other crime prosecutors would cite; one that they’ve pointed to is an election law that bars conspiring “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” That, in turn, raises the question of what the “unlawful means” are, which could include campaign finance violations like the ones Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to over the hush money scheme (though the state should emphasize the precise theory in its summation).

So, there are layers to felony charges that don’t exist with misdemeanors. The state has sought to simplify the felony narrative to an election conspiracy covered up with false records, and it may succeed in doing so. The defense, meanwhile, wants to at least complicate that narrative in the hopes of a hung jury. Cohen is poised to be the state's final witness and is set to resume his cross-examination Thursday. It’s unclear how much of a case the defense will put on, though it has no burden, which falls on the prosecution to prove Trump's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

But if his lawyers feel their client is staring down near-certain felony convictions, then they might consider pitching the jury on misdemeanors as an alternative. New York law says that judges can submit lesser-included charges to the jury “if there is a reasonable view of the evidence which would support a finding that the defendant committed such lesser offense but did not commit the greater.” The law further says that, in such situations, if either side asks for a lesser-included option, then the court must give it.

Even if they had wanted to, the shorter statute of limitations for misdemeanors barred prosecutors from bringing such charges initially, so the state shouldn't make the lesser-included request (again, even if it wants to or could legally do so). But the defense can waive the statute of limitations.

That was written weeks ago. Since then, nothing. Team Trump did not bring the issue up.

But there you have it. It was not a misdemeanor, because the defense would have had to demand it. They chose not to do that.They chose to roll the dice on the tougher charge, thinking the jury wouldn't go for it. The rules about appeals might not be easy -- law school is a big deal -- but I think you don't get to appeal a decision you made badly, or did not make at all. That's why Giuliani refusing to hand over documents was Giuliani's problem immediately.

And no willfully ill-informed handwaving armchair lawyer cultist gets to change that.

[Polgara]

Indeed, and let's not forget, the American justice system gives every accused every possible chance. You get unremovable rights. You get a lawyer. You only need reasonable doubt. It takes a 12/12 verdict to convict. Any one of those issues broken and a criminal goes free. It takes all of those to line up for a criminal to be convicted.

Yelling "legal deficiencies" doesn't make it true. Team Trump has lost every legal challenge so far. You would think something as obvious as "this isn't a felony" would have come up, if it was true. It didn't. And I don't think it's going to come up in the appeals court, either. I don't think you wait until the trial, then the judgement, then the appeal to say "this charge was wrong the whole time". That sounds like a pre-trial motion that would have been handled earlier. Here's an article on the topic.

That was written weeks ago. Since then, nothing. Team Trump did not bring the issue up.

Legal deficiencies make sense as an argument if the defendant in the case was a poor African-American having to pay just to request a court-appointed lawyer so they could literally be told to take a plea bargain and just admit guilt, not someone who was the FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTRY. I'd hope, to also have a shred of even remote consistency they donate to the innocence project, and this isn't just whining from pretentious middle-classies who don't have a shred of a clue about the trial got a former president Donvicted of felonies.

Those people wouldn't want to be inconsistent and dishonest on the internet, would they? I would also hope they want to see shittenhouse behind bars too, SURELY they didn't also defend them and call the system "working as intended" right? Trump's team had no defense, because the Felon Don had no defense, the receipts exist. Shame the rule of law is something the rabidly incompetent Trumpists also want to destroy on their way below the barrel.

[Endus]

That was written weeks ago. Since then, nothing. Team Trump did not bring the issue up.

But there you have it. It was not a misdemeanor, because the defense would have had to demand it. They chose not to do that.They chose to roll the dice on the tougher charge, thinking the jury wouldn't go for it. The rules about appeals might not be easy -- law school is a big deal -- but I think you don't get to appeal a decision you made badly, or did not make at all. That's why Giuliani refusing to hand over documents was Giuliani's problem immediately.

And no willfully ill-informed handwaving armchair lawyer cultist gets to change that.

In pretty much every legal system I'm aware of, if the opposing lawyers don't file an objection to a decision, as far as the courts are concerned they agreed with that decision and accepted the ruling, so they don't get to come back later and claim they object after the decision to something they agreed to in the moment. If you wanted to object to calling a certain witness or making a certain argument, the time to do that was in the trial when that was happening. If you didn't, you can't appeal over it.

If you fucked up your defense royally by making stupid or negligent decisions, your client could've fired you and demanded a new lawyer mid-trial, but they don't get to bitch about it post-verdict. Not unless they could somehow show their own defense team was secretly colluding against them with the prosecutors or something, which obviously wasn't the case here. None of the bullshit the armchair lawyers are pulling up are legal arguments that justify an appeal; they're kvetching about procedure that the defense team accepted and proceeded forward with. That puts it out of the scope of appeal.

The court system doesn't give you unlimited do-overs. You need a legitimate reason for an appeal to be heard, or it'll be tossed on sight.

[Breccia]

Trump's team had no defense

That's part of it: they chose not to. Defenses that would have worked probably exist. Trump didn't use those, and might have fought against some of them.

Of course, if Trump was innocent, he could have taken the stand without fear. Or, he could have answered his own lawyer's questions then taken the Fifth on everything else. There might have been ways to fight with facts and evidence, maybe. We'll never know. Team Trump didn't even try.

A majority of Indys say Trump got a fair trial. People who have no stake in the game are not yelling "legal deficiencies".

- - - Updated - - -

None of the bullshit the armchair lawyers are pulling up are legal arguments that justify an appeal; they're kvetching about procedure that the defense team accepted and proceeded forward with. That puts it out of the scope of appeal.

That's what I'm seeing, yes. Parroting Trump isn't a great way to be taken seriously as a legal mind. Trump is a lying loser with a track record of a horse you'd shoot.

[Gestopft]

The kind of norm-breaking and going big on the breaking of norms is what I'm referring to. Prosecuting an ex-President for new and untested legal theories, where the prosecutor was a Beria-like figure in the heart of "show me the man and I'll show you the crime." Or Reid eliminating the judicial filibuster, which became the foundation for McConnell's extension.

Ok sure, barring your comical description of Bragg, who- as you may or may not recall- declined to criminally charge Trump in the Trump Org. lawsuit, causing two of his prosecutors to resign (they showed him a man, yet he didn't show them a crime, I guess). I'd agree that breaking norms is a big part of 'raw power politics.' Removing the filibuster is a fine example (though I would be remiss if I didn't point to the unprecedented obstruction of judicial nominees the GOP engaged in ((also raw power)) that led to Reid's partial filibuster removal).

Really, my point in all this is that it's quite funny seeing Democrats, and in particular BIDEN described as this big practitioner of "raw power," since so many of us that vote for him think he's pretty weak in terms of actually using his power. Spent the first half of his term getting cowed by Manchin, wouldn't even stand up to the parliamentarian, now getting utterly bodied by Netanyahu, etc... And I'm not inherently against the raw use of power, either- there are plenty of things I want the Democrats to do which I think would be justifiable, but also reasonably count as 'raw power-' so it's not like I'm trying to defend the Democrats' or Biden's integrity here either. It's just weird to me. But I mean, apart from one zealous prosecutor and trying reaaaal hard to get some college students to like him, whatcha got?

The student debt forgiveness has at its heart the realization that the Executive branch can't invent millions of dollars of loan subsidies, but with that knowledge, doing it anyways through pretexts. That's properly vested in the Legislative branch.

You're greatly overstating the certitude of your case here. Even several Senate Republicans agree with me here, because back before the SCOTUS case where Biden's first attempt was denied, some GOP Senators introduced a bill to amend the HEROES act. It seems that they thought the language was vague enough that it could be reasonably interpreted the way Biden Administration did. You are asserting though, without evidence, that the Biden administration doesn't actually think they have a credible legal argument, but are proceeding anyway, when in reality, a) the legality is more nebulous than you're making it out to be, and b) this means that all that is going on is an administration is rejiggering a policy to try and find a workable legal framework for it, which is...a normal thing that all administrations do. Trump did it for his travel ban, to use a recent example, and while I thought the policy itself was egregious, I wouldn't call it 'raw power' or anything like that.

While liberal groups forum shop until a Hawaiian judge issues national injunctions, and find friendly judges in NY and DC. It's been common power politics for around a decade, but conservative groups have very recently showed it's a two-way street.

It must be noted that a) with the SCOTUS having been GOP-appointed majority since Nixon, they have far more ability to actually 'enact policy' in this manner, and b) the 'recency' you describe lines up with the GOP finally having enough loony True Believers that they assess the floodgates to be open.

The basic end is that the crime is a misdemeanor, rarely prosecuted on its own (eg prosecuted because of add'l charges bribery or fraud with victims), past the statute of limitations, and the legal theory that made it a felony has deficiencies as a matter of law.

Say for the sake of argument I grant all this and we agree that this is a political hit: I would still argue that this is mostly a problem of the GOP's making. They have, without fail, cried foul at every single attempt to hold Trump accountable for his actions. Every investigation, impeachment, lawsuit, etc. they have described as "political" or "they're just out to get him." They have so often and so repeatedly failed to engage with the substance of the accusations/indictments and failed to wrestle with the notion that, you know, he might actually have done something wrong, that why wouldn't the Democrats go with a political route when it's expedient? If every attempt to engage in oversight, investigation, or criminal/civil accountability is going to be immediately tarred as "purely political," then why not be political about it? Where's the incentive to do the harder work? If the GOP had even shown a modicum of sustained critical examination toward Trump's behavior and crimes in these cases, or even in the impeachments, they'd actually have some credibility, and an overzealous prosecutor would find themself out on an island if their case wasn't rock-solid (I will note that the bipartisan Senate Intel Committee investigation of Russian interference was good work, but good luck getting GOP Senators to actually talk about any unfavorable details in public...). Just saying that the party of "lock her up" could've done a lot of things to either a) avoid this or b) potentially make Bragg look worse in a lot more people's eyes (if the case was as weak as you say it is). There's a reason we tell children the story of "the boy who cried wolf," but the GOP doesn't seem to have gotten the lesson.

If we stipulate that the crime is deficient as I described, then Joe Biden is vulnerable for the same reason: he is guilty of several crimes of similar stature if there's a DA willing to prosecute for it and a Judge willing to hear it. If this is the new norm in politics, then you shouldn't really expect only one party to continue to benefit from it. There's a lot more that I can say about writing new rules vs playing by the new rules.

Like I said: you might have a point here if it weren't for the fact that the GOP has, and will almost certainly continue to, react the same way about all of the other trials. Attacks on this particular trial may be easy or convenient, but the tighter cases coming up aren't going to change their behavior. I just don't think there ever was a path where Trump gets held legally accountable and the GOP doesn't express a desire to retaliate for political reason. I would absolutely love to be proven wrong about this.

[Polgara]

That's part of it: they chose not to. Defenses that would have worked probably exist. Trump didn't use those, and might have fought against some of them.

Of course, if Trump was innocent, he could have taken the stand without fear. Or, he could have answered his own lawyer's questions then taken the Fifth on everything else. There might have been ways to fight with facts and evidence, maybe. We'll never know. Team Trump didn't even try.

A majority of Indys say Trump got a fair trial. People who have no stake in the game are not yelling "legal deficiencies".

- - - Updated - - -



That's what I'm seeing, yes. Parroting Trump isn't a great way to be taken seriously as a legal mind. Trump is a lying loser with a track record of a horse you'd shoot.

I also checked and misworded my post; but you already cleared that up: I meant to type:

Trump's team had no defense, because the Felon Don mounted no defense

thanks for clearing that up, didn't realize I miscommunicated that. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what defense they could have mounted outside of mitigating the severity instead of a simple "Trump's Trump c'mooon". IIRC one of their defenses was Cohen is a liar, but didn't even poke falsities in the claims made by him on the stand? If I remember correctly that about sums up the entire defense case.

Side note if you are certain republicans your horse could have a winning record and you'd still give it the quick ballistic exit: Manufacturing Consent by Noem Shotski.

[Breccia]

didn't realize I miscommunicated that.

You didn't, I was agreeing with you.

[Polgara]

You didn't, I was agreeing with you.

I thought as much, I was adding the clarification just in case certain people less rational would jump that I was claiming trump had no defense because he had no defense, instead of because his team just didn't mount one, and that your clarification was a lot more cogent than mine .

Edit: appreciate the positive reinforcement though, even though english is my first language I'm ADHD and quite often stuff up language pretty blatantly.

[tehdang]

Ok sure, barring your comical description of Bragg, who- as you may or may not recall- declined to criminally charge Trump in the Trump Org. lawsuit, causing two of his prosecutors to resign (they showed him a man, yet he didn't show them a crime, I guess). I'd agree that breaking norms is a big part of 'raw power politics.' Removing the filibuster is a fine example (though I would be remiss if I didn't point to the unprecedented obstruction of judicial nominees the GOP engaged in ((also raw power)) that led to Reid's partial filibuster removal).

Really, my point in all this is that it's quite funny seeing Democrats, and in particular BIDEN described as this big practitioner of "raw power," since so many of us that vote for him think he's pretty weak in terms of actually using his power. Spent the first half of his term getting cowed by Manchin, wouldn't even stand up to the parliamentarian, now getting utterly bodied by Netanyahu, etc... And I'm not inherently against the raw use of power, either- there are plenty of things I want the Democrats to do which I think would be justifiable, but also reasonably count as 'raw power-' so it's not like I'm trying to defend the Democrats' or Biden's integrity here either. It's just weird to me. But I mean, apart from one zealous prosecutor and trying reaaaal hard to get some college students to like him, whatcha got?

Bragg himself is the only one that really knows, but my first guess is that he saw what Letitia James did and figured that doing the proper thing was just dumb.

To your main point, Biden could've been much, much worse. You may recall that this all started with the hypocrisy of progressives. Painting themselves as "nobody is above the law" when its Trump, and then not letting the law be the impediment when its student loan forgiveness. For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law. I'm not embarking on a rough estimate of how progressives with Biden had used the exercise of raw power, versus the times when he/his staff/his allies engaged in it. That might need its own thread, and his first term isn't over yet.

You're greatly overstating the certitude of your case here. Even several Senate Republicans agree with me here, because back before the SCOTUS case where Biden's first attempt was denied, some GOP Senators introduced a bill to amend the HEROES act. It seems that they thought the language was vague enough that it could be reasonably interpreted the way Biden Administration did. You are asserting though, without evidence, that the Biden administration doesn't actually think they have a credible legal argument, but are proceeding anyway, when in reality, a) the legality is more nebulous than you're making it out to be, and b) this means that all that is going on is an administration is rejiggering a policy to try and find a workable legal framework for it, which is...a normal thing that all administrations do. Trump did it for his travel ban, to use a recent example, and while I thought the policy itself was egregious, I wouldn't call it 'raw power' or anything like that.

Some people will want to close every legal loophole that dishonest lawyers can try to exploit. If GOP Senators want to play whackamole, they're welcome to it, but they're wasting their time.

The authority of the executive branch over immigration as a matter of law is very permissive. The final iteration held water since the executive is authorized in that respect (Trump v Hawaii). The executive branch, however, is trying to find legal loopholes where the crafters of the bill had no idea they were effectively allowing any president to unilaterally cancel student loan debt if they felt like it. You're making out the legal case to be much more fuzzy that it is.

It must be noted that a) with the SCOTUS having been GOP-appointed majority since Nixon, they have far more ability to actually 'enact policy' in this manner, and b) the 'recency' you describe lines up with the GOP finally having enough loony True Believers that they assess the floodgates to be open.

In reality, several GOP appointees turned activist once they were seated on the highest court. People of my persuasion have been unable to turn back the activism until Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. But undoing the rampant disregard for the laws will surely be seen as 'enact policy' to people of your persuasion.

Say for the sake of argument I grant all this and we agree that this is a political hit: I would still argue that this is mostly a problem of the GOP's making. They have, without fail, cried foul at every single attempt to hold Trump accountable for his actions. Every investigation, impeachment, lawsuit, etc. they have described as "political" or "they're just out to get him." They have so often and so repeatedly failed to engage with the substance of the accusations/indictments and failed to wrestle with the notion that, you know, he might actually have done something wrong, that why wouldn't the Democrats go with a political route when it's expedient? If every attempt to engage in oversight, investigation, or criminal/civil accountability is going to be immediately tarred as "purely political," then why not be political about it? Where's the incentive to do the harder work? If the GOP had even shown a modicum of sustained critical examination toward Trump's behavior and crimes in these cases, or even in the impeachments, they'd actually have some credibility, and an overzealous prosecutor would find themself out on an island if their case wasn't rock-solid (I will note that the bipartisan Senate Intel Committee investigation of Russian interference was good work, but good luck getting GOP Senators to actually talk about any unfavorable details in public...). Just saying that the party of "lock her up" could've done a lot of things to either a) avoid this or b) potentially make Bragg look worse in a lot more people's eyes (if the case was as weak as you say it is). There's a reason we tell children the story of "the boy who cried wolf," but the GOP doesn't seem to have gotten the lesson.

Just because there's a lot of loudmouths that deny any wrongdoing happened at all doesn't give you the right to choose an unlawful but politically expedient route to an unjust criminal conviction. It's still a crime of volition. The case is of "lock her up:" Hillary walks free, and nothing happened beyond political bloviating.

If you yield that Republicans could have been coming out of this smelling a lot better, I do agree. It's not an excuse, it's a lesser and unforced error. If Republicans had decided that Hillary should be in jail for jaywalking with some felony enhancement, I wouldn't be in here arguing that it's all Democrats fault for screaming about an illegitimate election.

Like I said: you might have a point here if it weren't for the fact that the GOP has, and will almost certainly continue to, react the same way about all of the other trials. Attacks on this particular trial may be easy or convenient, but the tighter cases coming up aren't going to change their behavior. I just don't think there ever was a path where Trump gets held legally accountable and the GOP doesn't express a desire to retaliate for political reason. I would absolutely love to be proven wrong about this.

And Democrats would be in a much better spot if they hadn't blown their load on illegitimate prosecutions, but actually focused on the ones where they had Trump dead to rights (assuming competent case prosecution, since we have Fani Willis in the mix). They willfully devalued the real effects of established trials & crimes for no good gain. If their aim was in fact to delegitimize the other trials, they couldn't have done a better job with this course of action.

[Gestopft]

The authority of the executive branch over immigration as a matter of law is very permissive. The final iteration held water since the executive is authorized in that respect (Trump v Hawaii). The executive branch, however, is trying to find legal loopholes where the crafters of the bill had no idea they were effectively allowing any president to unilaterally cancel student loan debt if they felt like it.

I get that immigration is a different issue. But again, you're just asserting without evidence that the Biden admin secretly agrees with you on the legality and then you assess their behavior based on that assumption rather than the much more straightforward assumption that they actually believe their own legal argument.

Just because there's a lot of loudmouths that deny any wrongdoing happened at all doesn't give you the right to choose an unlawful but politically expedient route to an unjust criminal conviction. It's still a crime of volition.

I didn't say it gives the right, I just said a) it makes it easier and b) the GOP could've done a lot better if they had been reasonable and rational rather than cultists for Trump. Someone above linked a poll indicating that a majority of independents think the trial was fair. Maybe if the GOP weren't so reflexively sycophantic for Trump in every other matter, that number would look different. It might not be right, but if the GOP is going to give the Dems the path of least resistance, they shouldn't be surprised when it gets taken.

In reality, several GOP appointees turned activist once they were seated on the highest court. People of my persuasion have been unable to turn back the activism until Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. But undoing the rampant disregard for the laws will surely be seen as 'enact policy' to people of your persuasion.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. OMG. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How far down the rabbit hole do you have to be when you think that Souter and Kennedy suddenly "turned activist?" I'm off to bed, man, thanks for the belly laugh.

[Breccia]

an unjust criminal conviction.

Those sound like feelings. And we all know what we say about those around here. Evidence matters in court. Your feelings don't.

[tehdang]

I get that immigration is a different issue. But again, you're just asserting without evidence that the Biden admin secretly agrees with you on the legality and then you assess their behavior based on that assumption rather than the much more straightforward assumption that they actually believe their own legal argument.

You're really serious that the HEROES act unilaterally granted the president loan subsidization powers, and after the Supreme Court struck that down, the Biden team believes they have a different and also totally legal route? I'm having trouble believing you. Much simpler is they know it helps them politically, and they don't really care if its legal or not.

I didn't say it gives the right, I just said a) it makes it easier and b) the GOP could've done a lot better if they had been reasonable and rational rather than cultists for Trump. Someone above linked a poll indicating that a majority of independents think the trial was fair. Maybe if the GOP weren't so reflexively sycophantic for Trump in every other matter, that number would look different. It might not be right, but if the GOP is going to give the Dems the path of least resistance, they shouldn't be surprised when it gets taken.

Well if you're just griping about undisciplined Republicans running their mouths, there's enough that I would agree with you on.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. OMG. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How far down the rabbit hole do you have to be when you think that Souter and Kennedy suddenly "turned activist?" I'm off to bed, man, thanks for the belly laugh.

Not too familiar with their pre-Supreme role, only that they were nominated by Republicans and were squishes in many that mattered. From NOW bemoaning Souter's coming 5th vote to overturn Roe, hahaha Casey. Constitution has a lot to say about abortion, clearly. Voluntary school prayer. Affirmative action. Kennedy and O'Conner big swing voters; activists on many issues that mattered. But many of their failures are being corrected in today's court. Thankfully so.

Souter's turn was remarked upon contemporaneously in the old 90s. He's probably the most famous example. Old '95 article. It's actually a good example of pre-Trump disagreements. Conservatives knew the past failures of the presidential nominating process. That history fed into Trump's list of potentials, which wouldn't have been necessary if not for the Bush and Reagan failures.

[DarkTZeratul]

In reality, several GOP appointees turned activist once they were seated on the highest court. People of my persuasion have been unable to turn back the activism until Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. But undoing the rampant disregard for the laws will surely be seen as 'enact policy' to people of your persuasion.

It's hilarious that when the Supreme Court rule in conservatives' favor, they're "undoing the rampant disregard for the laws." But when they rule against, they're "activist judges legislating from the bench."

It's an especially hilarious argument given how much very blatant bench legislation the Roberts Court has engaged in.

Conservatives knew the past failures of the presidential nominating process. That history fed into Trump's list of potentials, which wouldn't have been necessary if not for the Bush and Reagan failures.

This really sounds like an outright admission that conservatives have been intentionally stacking the court with like-minded judges to ensure favorable rulings.

[tehdang]

It's hilarious that when the Supreme Court rule in conservatives' favor, they're "undoing the rampant disregard for the laws." But when they rule against, they're "activist judges legislating from the bench."

It's an especially hilarious argument given how much very blatant bench legislation the Roberts Court has engaged in.

I know that there's been so much ignorance of the constitution that these things sound new. It's pretty expected.

This really sounds like an outright admission that conservatives have been intentionally stacking the court with like-minded judges to ensure favorable rulings.

Favorable to the constitution and the rule of law, certainly. That will certainly go against Republicans or businesses, see Trump v Thompson. Heck, see the results of the current term that will be released in the coming weeks.

[postman1782]

I know that there's been so much ignorance of the constitution that these things sound new. It's pretty expected.

Favorable to the constitution and the rule of law, certainly. That will certainly go against Republicans or businesses, see Trump v Thompson. Heck, see the results of the current term that will be released in the coming weeks.

Yeah, by you. Have you ever been right about anything yet?

[DarkTZeratul]

Favorable to the constitution and the rule of law, certainly.

What part of the constitution or the rule of law says "you're not allowed to make a law banning something unless there's a history of laws banning it"? (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen) Or how about "you have to be allowed to make a law banning something because there's no history of laws allowing it"? (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization)

Because both of those seemed likely incredibly clear cases of legislating from the bench by finding spurious reason to justify the preferred conservative outcome rather than engaging in any serious review of the laws in question, especially since they ignored the doctrine of severability to do so.

[Corvus]

Has a single one of the 'all of the law experts' who said Trump committed no crime actually come out and said that yet. Surely Trump wouldn't have lied about that.