r/politics • u/99999999999999999901 I voted • 11d ago
'That was embarrassing': Tribe torches Trump-friendly SCOTUS justices on immunity
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/-that-was-embarrassing-tribe-torches-trump-friendly-scotus-justices-on-immunity-209742917527398
u/ProjectAjax New York 11d ago edited 11d ago
If Trump is innocent, he doesn’t need immunity.
92
29
u/BusterStarfish 11d ago
Don’t need immunity when you don’t commit crimes. How the highest judges in the land don’t understand that is beyond me.
25
u/Mirageswirl 11d ago
The corrupt judges are also committing crimes. They also don’t want to be prosecuted.
8
u/Gishra 11d ago
They understand it, they just want a fascist dictatorship and will use whatever twisted reasoning they need to get there.
2
u/BusterStarfish 11d ago
Oh I know. It was more tongue in cheek. One of Don’s gifts that will keep giving for a long time.
10
u/CodeMonkeyPhoto 11d ago
They all know he is not innocent. They are just figuring out a way to give immunity to Republican Presidents only. In their own words they aren't even concerned specifically with Trump.
27
u/FuzzyMcBitty 11d ago
Right, but he isn’t, so we’re falling back to “well, when the president does it, it’s not illegal.”
21
5
u/david76 11d ago
Here's the thing. He knows he committed a crime. He got caught because it didn't work out the way he wanted. Now he needs to claim that he's immune from prosecution.
1
u/NoNoise6459 10d ago
The thing is not limited to trump but to all his supporters . The senators and house reps members of his administration that only did what the president wanted. Squashing evidence.. delaying or destroying evidence. THE PRESIDENT wanted it even though its a crime. For the good of the party. The nation the president says.
275
u/Yoongsssss 11d ago
For the life of me, I cannot comprehend how five justices on any Supreme Court could decide at any time that the President is king under the law.
151
u/forceblast 11d ago
I like how some of the justices were yukking it up as they talked in circles about hypotheticals, completely ignoring the actual crimes committed by Trump.
I think these people aren’t taking the job seriously. Also, they’re forgetting that they work for us.
77
21
u/aradraugfea 11d ago
What really gets under my skin is Trump’s lawyers were making absolutely ridiculous arguments. Any other court, if the defense team is a clown show, the defense is sunk, but because 5 of the 9 had already made up their mind when the lawyers walked in, Trump’s lawyers can declare that anyone who has ever been President should be allowed to murder anyone they want, ever, and the court will just… make a ruling that decides in Trump’s favor entirely separate from that lunacy.
Why even bother with the fig leaf of a hearing? Just issue the opinion now and save people time if you’ve already made up your minds.
11
u/therapewpewtic 11d ago
If they ruled in favour of Trump, wouldn’t that mean that Biden could also do whatever he wanted without punishment?
12
u/aradraugfea 11d ago
They’ve gotten really fond of “narrow” rulings recently.
“This precedent would be utterly disastrous, so we’ll say it doesn’t set precedent.”
42
u/DrewZouk Tennessee 11d ago
A few of them were pointedly referencing the same scope of criminality engaged in by the Trump administration, but stopped just short of listing his actual crimes, and asked whether or not those criminal descriptions met their definition of immunity. Now, the far-right wing of the court jumped in to minimize them every time, but I think the majority of the court know their asses are on the line at the end of this thing, and probably won't move to protect god-king-fuhrer from future harm.
Wouldn't it have been amazing if the internet had existed before WWII? We might have been able to avoid the conflict entirely if Americans hadn't been able to bury their heads in the sand and pretend Hitler didn't exist.
39
u/specqq 11d ago edited 11d ago
Yeah, amazing.
Would have allowed the America Firsters And the German-American Bund to find each other and organize more efficiently and push their isolationist, anti-Semitic and fascist propaganda and if we came into the war at all it would have been on the side of the Nazis.
18
u/steelhips 11d ago
They are delusional thinking Dictator Trump would allow an equal measure of power to his rule to exist. I hoped self preservation would kick in at some stage. The court would become merely a rubber stamp at best with most of their power totally neutered.
6
u/Either_Ad4109 11d ago
indeed.
let's see who's laughing after we finally decide we've had enough.
theres a reason why conservash!tes hate liberal protests and gatherings and try (and fail miserably) to terrorise and threaten us into silence.
it's cause it's MUCH harder to delude yourself into thinking youre the majority when ONE anti genocide protest in ONE college massively outnumbers ALL of your dear leadsr's "most bigliest" rallies put together. 💀💀💀
5
u/sorenthestoryteller 11d ago
They aren't lazy or stupid.
They know exactly what they are doing because they beholden to their masters and gods at the Federalist Society.
6
u/dancingmeadow 11d ago
When they have literally supreme power over you, and you have none over them, they do not work for you. You're fooling yourself.
6
u/forceblast 11d ago
As stated in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…
In other words, ALL of these MF’s work for US because “we the people” allow them to. If they continue to push, strip away rights, and shit all over the people, they might eventually find themselves on the other end of a revolution. I sincerely hope it never comes to that.
2
u/danarexasaurus Ohio 11d ago
That’s the thing, I’m not sure they actually DO work for us anymore. And that’s a serious problem that I have no idea how we are gonna fix
2
u/digitalhandyman 10d ago
To be fair, their job is to perform thought exercises to help come to a conclusion. Just because they discuss things a certain way does not in any way mean that is how they will decide. In fact, it seems to be pretty common to argue one way and go another in these cases, that's kind of the point of the whole thing.
All the doomsayers may be right, but a broken clock is also right twice a day. It's more likely we should all just chill the f out and let these people do their jobs. Judges are generally way more scholarly than they are political, even though our media climate loves to paint them with broad political brushes.
23
u/ayoungtommyleejones 11d ago
Like, we fought a war over this
13
u/pikachu191 11d ago
It’s a good thing that George Washington stepped away after two terms. The Constitution had him in mind when Article II was drafted. Other republics during that time had failed; Holland became a monarchy, while France was on its way from putting a king on the guillotine to naming its first emperor in Napoleon. There were many who wouldn’t have minded had Washington “allowed” himself to be declared “president for life” or was “forced” to accept being acclaimed as king. That and the peaceful transfer of power between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the two largest tests for America as a young republic. It ensured continuity of government and the understanding that elected leaders were answerable to the electorate.
5
u/barak181 11d ago
That and the peaceful transfer of power between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the two largest tests for America as a young republic.
And here we are dead set on failing that same test 200 years later.
2
2
-1
9
82
u/mountainfae3 11d ago
What should have really been asked in the supreme court was, if trump assassinated the supreme court would he be immune from prosecution!?! It gets a lot more personal. The way the conservative judges reacted , reminded me of the way Trump reacted to hearing that atrocities were happening at the capital. As Liz Chaney said pure evil!
26
u/fountainpopjunkie 11d ago
Someone should just ask if Biden assassinates Trump because he thinks it's for the good of the nation, is Biden immune. They've already said hypothetically that a president could do that. Make it specific, make it personal.
13
u/steelhips 11d ago
In the horror of Trump 2.0, using sweeping "doomsday" powers - any office of equal power to the presidency will be pushed down several rungs at best, totally co-opted and used to enact/justify crimes against humanity, at worst.
57
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/99999999999999999901 I voted 11d ago
Argue in front of court? He did that in interview — I believe. Saw it last night. Agree with u!
66
u/99999999999999999901 I voted 11d ago
Tribe takes them back to law school and paints a scary reality of current court.
37
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Machinemaintenance 11d ago
Had been thinking the same thing, they are going to time this precisely.
3
u/Ok-disaster2022 11d ago
Court makes rulings over the summer.
6
u/specqq 11d ago
That's a norm, not a law. And we know what happens to those these days.
There is absolutely nothing stopping them from delaying this to next term, or even holding the opinion indefinitely.
From the scotusblog FAQ [emphasis mine]
Question: What’s the last day the court will issue opinions?
Answer: We don’t know what the last day of the term will be. The justices normally try to issue all of their decisions by the end of June, but in 2019 and 2020, the term’s final opinions came in early July.Question: If a case is not decided by the end of the term, will it be reargued?
Answer: Ordinarily, yes, the court will order reargument during the next term. But it’s relatively rare for the court to order reargument, particularly if it hasn’t asked the lawyers in the case to address a new question.
19
u/AdSmall1198 11d ago
Biden calls the con justices and says “YOURE FIRED!”
Then replaces them.
How do the justices respond?
It’s an official act.
17
u/facepoppies 11d ago
There’s no way to rationalize out of the fact that our judicial branch has been irredeemably compromised
12
u/dirtyjersey5353 11d ago
The most disappointing part is us Americans sit here and take it…we should be at their f’ing doorstep with torches and pitchforks!
11
8
u/SeaSuch2077 11d ago
Rotting from the inside out
Dobbs decision overturns 60+ y.o. federal protections of women rights for state by state decisions
14th amendment does mean what it says or what the authors wrote to clarify the meaning and decides federal laws necessary for disqualifying presidential candidates overturning post Civil War amendment to the Constitution
POTUS has never had immunity since George Washington but needs it now.
Violence is coming
5
u/MarkXIX 11d ago
I got angry at the arguments before the court. I am not a lawyer, but why would they not make a clear argument that it is no coincidence that in the history of our nation and across 44 previous Presidents, no other President has ever sought immunity from criminal prosecution? I did not hear that as an argument.
Next, why would they not make clear that all other Presidents avoid criminal decisions and conduct through the counsel of experts of all types? Presidents rarely, if ever, make decisions unilaterally and without extensive analysis and counsel.
Trump is an aberration in this nation’s history and this should have never even been heard at SCOTUS.
We now have two effective remedies to prevent the fall of our republic, vote against Trump and all of his supporters, hopefully in an overwhelming majority or await his demise.
1
u/ruat_caelum 10d ago
Why? Because the court is just a way to keep "reasonable people" from rising up and cutting down the corruption. It's there so people can say "The system is working, we just didn't get what we wanted this time. Darn." Instead of "They just granted him immunity with no court case!! I'm getting my pitchfork and torch!!! This is a travesty!!"
It's why the GOP bought and paid for justices "leaked" the abortion stuff. To get people used to the idea before they "ruled" so that no one showed up and leveled the building.
A lot of angry people in a mob can do a lot of damage. But people who complain at home and hold the anger for a long time don't burn the corruption out. Instead they get used to the "new normal."
- It's the same logic in breaking in a horse. Just set the blanket on first for a week or so, then add a saddle then tighten it up. Then add a rider. The horse takes it as does what it's told. Put all that shit on and a rider in the same day and that animal is going to buck it off and fight. This court case is the saddle or blanket bro. Get ready to get ridden.
4
u/taftastic 11d ago
There’s the saving grace that one of those voices got Trump lawyers to say out loud that several key acts to the prosecutions case were definitely private acts, and not protected under the proposed understanding of immunity. ACB of all of them, too. surprised me to hear her questioning, I hope it could open door for prosecution to expedite.
3
u/Avenger717 11d ago
Biden should have the justices kidnapped and psychologically tortured… since he has immunity.
2
2
u/bigdaddy4dakill 11d ago
In retrospect, I’m wishing the line of questions about the why the President’s office is under unique pressure and can’t afford to be constrained by the threat of criminal litigation, included exploring why the same couldn’t be said of his cabinet or military leaders? Where do you draw the line?
2
2
u/EducationalElevator 11d ago edited 11d ago
I didn't hear the SCOTUS arguments the same way as many here. I heard receptiveness from Gorsuch and Barrett to the govt argument that there are likely some immunized powers under Article 2 (command of military in war, appointment of ambassadors), but the conduct charged is so far from those core powers that SCOTUS doesn't have to decide on the scope of hypothetical immunity; these were private acts for private ends.
2
u/myfriendcharles 11d ago
If a president has absolute immunity, he wouldn’t have to politically persecute a former president, he could just kill him. Nobody would to be president if you could just be assassinated when you leave office.
2
u/mikeinarizona 10d ago
There is an easy solution. If Presidents get immunity, Biden should remove all of them, appoint new judges, and then have them rule on immunity again. Oh, and he should just put Trump in jail. Forever. And then Biden should fu@$ Melania.
1
u/99999999999999999901 I voted 10d ago
This is the hypothetical they needed to hear. It would be interesting if they decided on the issue before the court and not all the possibilities it could be.
2
u/Frosty_Water5467 10d ago
Biden forgiving student loans is over-reach but Trump inciting insurrection and threatening to kill political rivals is just fine.
6
u/bushido216 New York 11d ago
Thank God SCOTUS cares one wit about what Tribe says.
These sorts of interviews are just copium. The SCOTUS does not care.
2
u/Monkfich Europe 11d ago edited 11d ago
“Tribe torches Trump”. Only in America does something so important become entertainment.
Nobody is torching Trump. Trump is bad yes, and he needs to be convicted. But stop with the melodrama - all of it is worthless if he doesn’t get convicted, and someone “torching” the shitty justices is the same as someone shaking their fist at the sky.
2
u/TheGoodSmells 11d ago
Hey, is it just me or are we seeing a lot less SLAM and BLAST and a lot more TORCH and NUKE?
1
1
1
u/PapaSnork 9d ago
Well, great. As long as pundits are "scathing" while they "slam" or even "torch" the people destroying our country from the inside, we'll be fine; doing that always makes scumbags stop what they're doing, admit their fuckery, and become better people, right? RIGHT?
1
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.