Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(146,288 posts)
Sat May 13, 2017, 02:00 PM May 2017

Supreme Court Slated to Take Unprecedented Action

It was learned today that the Supreme Court is considering taking action to remove the President of the Unites States, Donald J. Trump, from office by court order. According to a source close to one Justice, briefs have been prepared that lay out the Constitutional justification for such an action. Discussions have been ongoing for three weeks on this matter, explains our source, with the Justices closely divided on whether the SCOTUS can actually do what is proposed.

A noted Supreme Court follower and commentator explained: "Normally, the court only acts on cases brought before it after initial rulings in the lower courts. However, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when it comes to matters presidential and disputes between states. Apparently, two states with very large populations have filed complaints regarding the President's actions. Those complaints have led to consideration of this heretofore unknown process. There is no precedent in Supreme Court history for independent action, but such action is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution."

A spokesperson for a leading conservative think tank, who insisted on anonymity, argued vehemently against such an action. "If the Justices do this, they will be overturning the will of the American People. It cannot be allowed to happen. Donald Trump is the lawfully elected President, and can only be removed from office through impeachment in the House and conviction and removal by a 2/3 vote of the Senate."

Complicating the matter, newly appointed Justice Gorsuch might not be able to participate in deliberations, due to an obvious conflict of interest, since he was appointed by President Trump. One person close to Justice Gorsuch explained that the Justice would be opposed to recusing himself if this process goes forward. Apparently Gorsuch feels that his opinion in the matter would be left unconsidered should the case be decided by only 8 Justices. Further, that source wondered about a tied court and what that might mean to the validity of the deliberations.

An attempt to reach White House officials resulted only in "No comment" statements from everyone contacted. One White House staffer said that nobody on Trump's staff had even heard of this potential action by the SCOTUS.

We will continue to probe our sources within the Justice Department and Federal Court System to clarify what appears to be about to happen. Since this poses the risk of creating a constitutional crisis, we will focus all of our efforts on learning whether such a case will be considered and what might happen if the court decides to remove President Trump.



















Disclaimer: The above writing is total bullshit. It is made up of whole cloth. It's not a satire, though. It is an example of political writing with no basis whatsoever in fact. I wrote it, and posted it here, on a prominent Democratic discussion forum to make a point.

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Sculpin Beauregard

(1,046 posts)
2. The MSM are holding back info. People will seek info elsewhere in the meantime.
Sat May 13, 2017, 02:04 PM
May 2017

There are lawyers, Indy journos, law enforcement on Twitter. Follow them. MSM has abdicated their responsibility in most (but not all) cases.

MineralMan

(146,288 posts)
4. Hmm...maybe I'll start my own blog and post nonsense on it on a regular
Sat May 13, 2017, 02:05 PM
May 2017

basis. Who knows, people might just believe it...

MineralMan

(146,288 posts)
11. I beg your pardon, but I don't understand
Sat May 13, 2017, 02:21 PM
May 2017

your sentence. I do me? I mate with myself? Whatever can you mean>

MineralMan

(146,288 posts)
5. Exactly. Nobody would write bullshit on the Internet just
Sat May 13, 2017, 02:06 PM
May 2017

to make themselves look important and generate ad clicks. I guess I should give up thinking of that as a new career.

vlyons

(10,252 posts)
6. That such stuff is being posted shows how much
Sat May 13, 2017, 02:13 PM
May 2017

people want Trump to be gone. Of course, without citing any links or valid corroboration, it's just so much wishful thinking. SCOTUS would never do this. Only losing an election, impeachment, or removal for inability to perform duties are the lawful ways to remove POTUS. I expect to see more and more wishful stories like this. Afterall, didn't we learn from the Russians the power of phoney memes?

MineralMan

(146,288 posts)
9. Right now, we're being bombarded by stories from Twitter and blogs that
Sat May 13, 2017, 02:19 PM
May 2017

have no more truth in them that this fake piece I just wrote. I can write fake news that looks like real news almost as fast as I can type, and I have enough background in politics, government and international affairs to make them look possibly credible. All I'd need would be a blog with a good title and a Twitter account for that blog.

I choose not to do that. Others have made different choices. I am weary to death of unsubstantiated rumors and speculative articles that pretend to be actual news. Anonymous sources and somewhat plausible scenarios are easy to come up with. If such blogs and spurious "news" feeds the wishful thinking of readers, it quickly spreads through sharing.

I could do that. I will not do that. I loathe people who do it. The techniques are simple and easily recognized. I see them in use every day on DU. I wish I did not.

MedusaX

(1,129 posts)
7. However, you are not the first to make these exact assertions...
Sat May 13, 2017, 02:18 PM
May 2017

Just last night I came across a discussion of the exact scenario you have presented......

Perhaps you were a participant in that discussion (and I failed to recognize the username) as a way of testing the believability of the scenario ...

Or perhaps you have overstated the "bullshit" value of your scenario ...

Either way, you have successfully made your point.

rock

(13,218 posts)
13. "... they will be overturning the will of the American People."
Sat May 13, 2017, 02:59 PM
May 2017

Since Trump was not so elected by people, that wouldn't be true. See what happens when you mix people's votes with state's votes: you come up thinking the people elected somebody - not true. As Hillary said, " How many million do I have to beat Trump by to win this election?"

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court Slated to T...