Opinion: Has the Supreme Court gone ga-ga or MAGA?

[Social Media]

 

The Supreme Court of the United States finds itself embroiled in a heated debate over its perceived alignment with the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement led by former President Donald Trump. Critics argue that the court's recent actions suggest a tilt towards favoring Trump's interests, particularly in cases involving legal proceedings against him.

 

The core of this contention lies in the court's handling of a crucial issue: whether a former president, in this case, Trump, enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his tenure in office. The question of presidential immunity from prosecution for conduct outside official duties, such as attempts to overturn an election or incite insurrection, has become a focal point of legal scrutiny.

 

The recent indictment by Special Counsel Jack Smith implicates Trump in a range of alleged offenses related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, including orchestrating an insurrection at the Capitol. Despite lower court rulings rejecting Trump's claim of immunity, the Supreme Court's decision to consider the broader question of presidential immunity has sparked controversy.

 

Critics argue that the court's delay in addressing this issue could effectively shield Trump from facing trial before the upcoming election, thereby raising concerns about the administration of justice. The perceived inconsistency in the court's handling of Trump-related cases, compared to past instances of swift action, has raised eyebrows and fueled speculation about political influences.

 

Moreover, the court's composition, with a conservative majority bolstered by justices appointed by Trump himself, has fueled perceptions of bias in favor of the former president's interests. Critics point to Chief Justice John Roberts' stated preference for narrow decisions and consensus-building as potentially conflicting with the court's approach in this matter.

 

The urgency of the issue, coupled with concerns about the potential implications for the rule of law and democratic norms, has heightened scrutiny of the court's actions. While some express hope for a swift resolution to clarify the scope of presidential immunity, others fear that delay tactics could undermine the pursuit of justice and accountability.

 

In the face of mounting pressure and scrutiny, the Supreme Court finds itself at a crossroads, grappling with the delicate balance between upholding the law and navigating political pressures. As the debate rages on, the court's decisions and actions will continue to be closely scrutinized, with significant implications for the future of American democracy.

 

02.03.24

Source

 

[Skipalongcassidy]

Can't you find a better source for your liberal left baiting posts than THE HILL?  Typical 

[novacova]

14 minutes ago, Social Media said:

Has the Supreme Court gone ga-ga or MAGA?

Really? This is the plateaued of the mindset of the left…MAGA this MAGA that, as though we’re supposed to believe somehow that the left is noble? A total complete joke, anything coming out of the corrupt leftist media and the Banana Republic kangaroo courts of the left, a real poop show they’re putting on with their silly insecure Trump obsession.

[Walker88]

The anti-immunity argument should be pretty easy to present in front of the Supreme Court, taking a page from the book of Judge Pan, who asked the now infamous question during the DC Circuit Court appeal:

 

My use of quotations marks is what an attorney could say in front of the SC justices hearing the case:

 

"If a President was immune from prosecution, could he or she not order the assassination of Supreme Court Justices appointed by his or her predecessor? Is that where you want to go....or perhaps I should say how you want to go? Heck, he could even order the killing of the spouses and children of Supreme Court Justices."

 

Perhaps that would get the attention of Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett....as well as the arguably corrupt Thomas.

[Jingthing]

Ga-ga and Maga.

It started with Bush v Gore and now it's much much worse.

[EVENKEEL]

I'd wager if the Supreme Courts seats leaned to the left our liberal minded posters here would think the decisions were 100% just. 

[candide]

That's obvious. They cannot grant him immunity, so the only way to help is to delay.

[Tug]

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

I'd wager if the Supreme Courts seats leaned to the left our liberal minded posters here would think the decisions were 100% just. 

Trumps attempted coup and the destruction of American democracy should ba ajucitated BEFORE the election trumps claims of total immunity are total hogwash the S C just gifted traitor trump a delay it’s outrageous period no if ands or butts his immunity claims have no merit and the court knows it 

[Eric Loh]

4 hours ago, novacova said:

Really? This is the plateaued of the mindset of the left…MAGA this MAGA that, as though we’re supposed to believe somehow that the left is noble? A total complete joke, anything coming out of the corrupt leftist media and the Banana Republic kangaroo courts of the left, a real poop show they’re putting on with their silly insecure Trump obsession.

Sad to say that Trump and his MAGA movement has made the left noble. 

[EVENKEEL]

44 minutes ago, Tug said:

Trumps attempted coup and the destruction of American democracy should ba ajucitated BEFORE the election trumps claims of total immunity are total hogwash the S C just gifted traitor trump a delay it’s outrageous period no if ands or butts his immunity claims have no merit and the court knows it 

So now you know more, know better than a SCOTUS justice? 

[Tug]

15 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

So now you know more, know better than a SCOTUS justice? 

The appellate court threw it out they you and I  know this country was founded on the premise that ALL are equal under the law trump  does not have absolute immunity,this issue needs to be settled BEFORE the election period all stop no excuses no delays their decision and ESPECIALLY the delay in hearing the matter REEKS of partisanship!

[LosLobo]

 

"Justice delayed is justice denied”.

Jack Smith first petitioned the Supreme Court to address immunity in December last year and now it will be likely be May before a decision is finally made.

Interestingly, the expression about delaying justice, comes from the 1215 Magna Carta which has been the basis of common law throughout the English-speaking world, including the US.

With SCOTUS having invoked the Magna Carta in over one hundred of its past deliberations.

 

Obviously in this case, they overlooked the part about denying justice for the US Electorate.

 

 

[Danderman123]

My opinion is that the Supreme Court wants to define what acts of a President are protected by law, and what acts can be prosecuted.

 

For example, a President can pardon someone, but if they accept a bribe in exchange for a pardon, that can be prosecuted.

[Chomper Higgot]

Better the Supreme Court consider Trump’s claim to a blanket immunity now rather than after his criminal trials.

 

 

[herfiehandbag]

5 hours ago, candide said:

That's obvious. They cannot grant him immunity, so the only way to help is to delay.

I rather suspect that they are hoping and praying that once they have "played their part" in delaying the trials until after the election, that Trump is convincingly rejected by the electorate. If it is at all close then the antics and claims of cheating will start up again, there will be a faux legal mess and they will find themselves in the middle of it!

[Dolf]

Trump 2024 to 2028. What Americans want and the world needs.

[Yellowtail]

13 hours ago, LosLobo said:

 

"Justice delayed is justice denied”.

Jack Smith first petitioned the Supreme Court to address immunity in December last year and now it will be likely be May before a decision is finally made.

Interestingly, the expression about delaying justice, comes from the 1215 Magna Carta which has been the basis of common law throughout the English-speaking world, including the US.

With SCOTUS having invoked the Magna Carta in over one hundred of its past deliberations.

 

Obviously in this case, they overlooked the part about denying justice for the US Electorate.

 

 

The accused has the right to a speedy trial, not the state. 

 

The accused also has the right to due process, yet Jack Smith tried to circumvent normal judicial protocol to fit the election cycle and got called out for it. 

 

Trump is not above the law, but neither is he below it. 

[ozimoron]

The US SC is the world's most corrupt supreme court.

[herfiehandbag]

4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

The US SC is the world's most corrupt supreme court.

I wouldn't put it as the world's most corrupt supreme court, there are those which are merely rubber stamps for dictatorships.

 

It has certainly one notably corrupt member who continues to sit despite blatant political and financial entanglements, which surprisingly don't seem to bother his fellow members, and who seems immune to criticism or sanctions.

 

It has certainly become politicised, and is strongly suspected of being politically beholden to one of the two protagonists in the current election (Trump). There is a risk that it will become little more than a rubber stamp for Trump if he wins. That could possibly hand him control of all three branches of government, executive, legislative 

and judicial; a blow which could finish American democracy.

 

Trump obviously cares little for the Constitution, but it is ironic that the restrictions imposed on the court, both in terms of size and life tenure for it's members has made it's political subversion so much more possible.

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

I wouldn't put it as the world's most corrupt supreme court, there are those which are merely rubber stamps for dictatorships.

 

It has certainly one notably corrupt member who continues to sit despite blatant political and financial entanglements, which surprisingly don't seem to bother his fellow members, and who seems immune to criticism or sanctions.

 

It has certainly become politicised, and is strongly suspected of being politically beholden to one of the two protagonists in the current election (Trump). There is a risk that it will become little more than a rubber stamp for Trump if he wins. That could possibly hand him control of all three branches of government, executive, legislative 

and judicial; a blow which could finish American democracy.

 

Trump obviously cares little for the Constitution, but it is ironic that the restrictions imposed on the court, both in terms of size and life tenure for it's members has made it's political subversion so much more possible.

 

It is a rubber stamp for a dictatorship. There's not a shred of evidence legal logic that says they need to take as much time to make the decisions that need to be made quickly on the overwhelming public interest. Moreover, they know that the decision will be adverse but the ploy is to create as much delay as possible to give Trump a way to quash the prosecution or pardon himself if he wins. Then there is the criminality by Thomas which is going completely unchecked.

[LosLobo]

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

The accused has the right to a speedy trial, not the state. 

 

The accused also has the right to due process, yet Jack Smith tried to circumvent normal judicial protocol to fit the election cycle and got called out for it. 

 

Trump is not above the law, but neither is he below it. 

You obviously haven't read the Magna Carta or the US Constitution. 🙂

 

The right of 'justice delayed is justice denied' is not the sole privilege of the accused.

The State and, by extension, the people who have been affected by the accused's actions, also have a right to a speedy trial.

 

This right is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

 

It ensures that criminal proceedings move forward promptly, allowing for timely resolution of cases and preventing undue delays that could harm both the accused and the public interest.

'In essence, the maxim underscores the importance of timely legal redress and equitable relief for injured parties. When justice is delayed, it becomes effectively equivalent to having no remedy at all, impacting the fairness and effectiveness of the legal system'.

Justice delayed is justice denied - Wikipedia

[Dolf]

8 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

The accused has the right to a speedy trial, not the state. 

 

The accused also has the right to due process, yet Jack Smith tried to circumvent normal judicial protocol to fit the election cycle and got called out for it. 

 

Trump is not above the law, but neither is he below it. 

Biden and Pelosi are above the law but they are deep state. 

[Tug]

6 hours ago, ozimoron said:

The US SC is the world's most corrupt supreme court.

I’m not sure I’d go that far,leaning partisan yup trying desperately to dodge the bullet in adjudicating an ex president you bet shirking their duty 100% but the most corrupt im just not there……cowardly yup I’d go there!

[metisdead]

Off topic deflection posts and replies contravening our Community Standards have been removed.

[illisdean]

13 hours ago, LosLobo said:

This right is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

 

It ensures that criminal proceedings move forward promptly, allowing for timely resolution of cases and preventing undue delays that could harm both the accused and the public interest.

Yes, it does ....to  a criminal defendant and NOT John Q Public, you, me, and anyone else not facing criminal prosecution.

 

[LosLobo]

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

The accused also has the right to due process, yet Jack Smith tried to circumvent normal judicial protocol to fit the election cycle and got called out for it. 

Yet, Trump was the one who tried to circumvent justice by fitting in the election cycle to avoid his accountability.
 

Trump knew full well of the legal jeopardy before and after committing all of his indicted crimes, as he had the best legal advice that the White House's and later his minion's money could buy.

 

All of the cases for his 91 indictments were in investigation long before his candidacy announcement on 15th December 2022.
 

[Yellowtail]

9 hours ago, LosLobo said:

You obviously haven't read the Magna Carta or the US Constitution. 🙂

 

The right of 'justice delayed is justice denied' is not the sole privilege of the accused.

The State and, by extension, the people who have been affected by the accused's actions, also have a right to a speedy trial.

 

This right is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

 

It ensures that criminal proceedings move forward promptly, allowing for timely resolution of cases and preventing undue delays that could harm both the accused and the public interest.

'In essence, the maxim underscores the importance of timely legal redress and equitable relief for injured parties. When justice is delayed, it becomes effectively equivalent to having no remedy at all, impacting the fairness and effectiveness of the legal system'.

Justice delayed is justice denied - Wikipedia

 

Sixth Amendment
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

 

Nothing about the State having the right to expedite a trial to fit an election cycle, "The Wolf" clearly made that part up. But hey, maybe you guys can change it if it will help you get Trump. I think NY changed a couple laws to try to get him. 

 

I can't speak to the Magna Carta, but to be clear, the Bill of Rights does not protect the state from the individual, but rather protects the individual from the State, that's why the left hates it. 

 

U.S. Constitution - Sixth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

 

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

Supreme Court Poised to Rule on Monday on Trump’s Eligibility to Hold Office
An unusual announcement from the court provided a strong hint that the justices will act the day before the primaries on Super Tuesday.

March 3, 2024, 1:18 p.m. ET via NY Times

 

The Supreme Court announced on Sunday that it would issue at least one decision on Monday, a strong signal that it would rule then on former President Donald J. Trump’s eligibility for Colorado’s primary ballot.

The timing of the session is unusual given that the court had not been scheduled to return to the bench until March 15. In urging the justices to intervene, the Colorado Republican Party had asked them to act before the looming primaries on Super Tuesday, which include Colorado.

The ruling is likely to resolve not only whether Mr. Trump may appear on the Colorado primary ballot but also whether he is eligible to run in the general election. Indeed, the decision will almost certainly apply to any other state where Mr. Trump’s eligibility to run has been challenged.

 

https://archive.is/8NZhM#selection-629.0-631.12

[Yellowtail]

Why would he not be eligible to hold office? He has not been convicted of anything.

[LosLobo]

16 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Sixth Amendment
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

 

Nothing about the State having the right to expedite a trial to fit an election cycle, "The Wolf" clearly made that part up. But hey, maybe you guys can change it if it will help you get Trump. I think NY changed a couple laws to try to get him. 

 

I can't speak to the Magna Carta, but to be clear, the Bill of Rights does not protect the state from the individual, but rather protects the individual from the State, that's why the left hates it. 

 

U.S. Constitution - Sixth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

 

Well done, good post.

 

You may have learnt something researching the Sixth Amendment and The Bill of Rights, though it seems not enough.

 

I did not say that the “State has the right to expedite a trial to fit an election cycle” was in the Sixth Amendment.

 

You were the one who said “Jack Smith tried to circumvent normal judicial protocol to fit the election cycle”, obviously another one of your fishy red herring logical fallacies.

 

You are mistaken about the Bill of Rights and the Sixth Amendment.

 

The Bill of Rights:
 

1)  is the name given to the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which were ratified in 1791.
 

2)  added specific guarantees of individual rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, to the Constitution.
 

3) limits the power of the federal government, but it also grants the power of the federal government to enforce the rights of the people.

 

4) does not favor one political group over another, but rather reflects the values and principles of the American people.
 

The Sixth Amendment is one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.

 

It says that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial”.
 

This does not mean that the State has no right to a speedy and public trial.
 

The State, and by extension, the people who have been affected by the accused’s actions, also have a right to a speedy trial.
 

This right is implied by the Sixth Amendment and has been recognized by SCOTUS and other courts.
 

The purpose of this right is to ensure that criminal proceedings move forward promptly, allowing for timely resolution of cases and preventing undue delays that could harm both the accused and the public interest.
 

SCOTUS has affirmed this interpretation in several cases, such as [United States v. MacDonald], where it said that “the Speedy Trial Clause has a dual role: it protects the interest of the accused in a speedy resolution of the charges against him, and it serves the public interest in the prompt administration of justice”.
 

SCOTUS has also acknowledged that the State has a strong interest in bringing the accused to trial as soon as possible, to prevent the loss of evidence, the fading of witnesses’ memories, and the erosion of public confidence in the justice system.
 

Therefore, the right of the State to a speedy trial is derived from the Sixth Amendment and is consistent with its purpose and spirit.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription | National Archives

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia