General Discussion

lastlib

(23,389 posts)

44. Actually, they DID declare it as only applicable to that one case.

Mon Dec 11, 2023, 03:42 PM

Dec 2023

supreme.justia.com:
But that hasn't stopped courts and lawyers from citing it.

While the opinion explicitly states that it applies only to the unique circumstances of this election, it has been cited in cases at the lower levels of federal courts on election law and procedures.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

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