General Discussion

mobeau69

(11,145 posts) Mon Dec 11, 2023, 02:05 PM Dec 2023

Breaking - Jack Smith directly to Scotus: Decide slobby's immunity NOW. 👍 [View all]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna129088

80 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Breaking - Jack Smith directly to Scotus: Decide slobby's immunity NOW. 👍 [View all] mobeau69 Dec 2023 OP

This will be interesting LetMyPeopleVote Dec 2023 #1

Thank you. mobeau69 Dec 2023 #2

+1 dalton99a Dec 2023 #12

Check.. cilla4progress Dec 2023 #57

So, the question is Bettie Dec 2023 #3

Or do they do as SCOTUS has before in the Bush v Gore case csziggy Dec 2023 #6

That is an internet urban legend. former9thward Dec 2023 #11

Actually, they DID declare it as only applicable to that one case. lastlib Dec 2023 #44

All SC decisions only apply to one case. former9thward Dec 2023 #61

Maybe you need to read the actual decision ExWhoDoesntCare Dec 2023 #53

Every SC decision is limited to the Present circumstances. former9thward Dec 2023 #59

That's my fear Bettie Dec 2023 #14

i dont think they're willing to show their whole asses to protect that asshole. mopinko Dec 2023 #7

That's what I think, too. pandr32 Dec 2023 #20

and already polled them New Haven Dec 2023 #48

It would have to be for all presidents IMO. Otherwise it would fall in the realm os a special law which is mobeau69 Dec 2023 #9

Bush V Gore Bettie Dec 2023 #10

No, That is an internet urban legend. former9thward Dec 2023 #15

The decision held language that Bettie Dec 2023 #17

I remember that. Kingofalldems Dec 2023 #28

I have read the decision and the language is not there. former9thward Dec 2023 #34

Yes, it is. ExWhoDoesntCare Dec 2023 #56

You can personally attack me all you want. former9thward Dec 2023 #65

The sentence in question is on Page 12... Spazito Dec 2023 #58

Thanks so much for posting this Bettie Dec 2023 #60

You're welcome ! It did take a bit but I knew there was language that related to precedence.... Spazito Dec 2023 #62

The court did NOT say it could not be cited as precedent. former9thward Dec 2023 #63

I took the cite from your very link.... Spazito Dec 2023 #68

Here is an article about it. As of 2020. former9thward Dec 2023 #69

I also added links in my post that... Spazito Dec 2023 #71

The only one believing an internet legend is you ExWhoDoesntCare Dec 2023 #55

It would have to be for all. Special laws are unconstitutional. mobeau69 Dec 2023 #16

If trump is immune imagine what Joe can do now? pwb Dec 2023 #4

Lock up Trump, in Gitmo Kennah Dec 2023 #5

No malaise Dec 2023 #22

I agree. Colorado has an excellent facility for monsters. mobeau69 Dec 2023 #70

Good malaise Dec 2023 #72

So does Attica MorbidButterflyTat Dec 2023 #80

Well, if he was immune, being a President Bettie Dec 2023 #24

He would be imune from crimes Polybius Dec 2023 #64

Well, rats, because Bettie Dec 2023 #66

I love Jack Smith malaise Dec 2023 #8

He's a badass! mobeau69 Dec 2023 #21

Seriously!! InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2023 #78

Here is the link to the filing Bev54 Dec 2023 #13

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2023 #18

I doubt anything about these cases could be predicated on an 'average' Torchlight Dec 2023 #27

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2023 #32

Given the already expedited procedures, it does not follow Torchlight Dec 2023 #36

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2023 #38

Interesting guesswork Torchlight Dec 2023 #43

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2023 #51

Quite the movement. Torchlight Dec 2023 #54

Good, the Justices need to be on record FHRRK Dec 2023 #19

With their lifetime appointments already secured I won't hold my breath MistakenLamb Dec 2023 #46

In Jones v Clinton Deminpenn Dec 2023 #23

Wholly Molly WOW! Awesome bluestarone Dec 2023 #25

Great move. Don't let Trump huff and puff for 9 months, let's have it done now bucolic_frolic Dec 2023 #26

This orangecrush Dec 2023 #40

This go to Roberts hand? bluestarone Dec 2023 #29

Or they pull a Citizen's United edhopper Dec 2023 #30

TFG & SCOTUS NowISeetheLight Dec 2023 #31

THIS should be a no brainer for the SC. bluestarone Dec 2023 #33

Good..cut him off at the knees. He was hoping to go thru the appeals court...wait a few months, appeal PortTack Dec 2023 #35

If they decide in his favor, America is done. spanone Dec 2023 #37

This is big. orangecrush Dec 2023 #39

He's wasting his time if he doesn't go there first. lees1975 Dec 2023 #41

There are many things to which Trump is immune. LudwigPastorius Dec 2023 #42

This is an interesting gamble Shermann Dec 2023 #45

Here are the Main Documents of both of Jack Smith's latest opposing motions. ancianita Dec 2023 #47

Make them choose now Demnh2fl Dec 2023 #49

Supremes'll find a way to weasel out on this one. n/t TygrBright Dec 2023 #50

YES! Make them go on the record, finally!!! FakeNoose Dec 2023 #52

When will they rule on this? Polybius Dec 2023 #67

Well, to me this is open and shut. I can think of NO lawyers or witness's that need to be called to testify bluestarone Dec 2023 #74

Would they rule that President Biden has unlimited immunity too? C_U_L8R Dec 2023 #73

Well, now. There's an interesting question!!! nt LAS14 Dec 2023 #75

Slobby is up shit creek without a paddle malaise Dec 2023 #76

Jack Smith is a national treasure!! InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2023 #77

Jack Smith's plan. Handler Dec 2023 #79