EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

[Dude#1279435]

The SC will take up the case after appeals because they have to decide on immunity once and for all.

 

[lovinthehd]

The SC will take up the case after appeals because they have to decide on immunity once and for all.

Can't they just refuse to hear the case further?

 

[Dude#1279435]

Can't they just refuse to hear the case further?

I don't know how that works.

 

[lovinthehd]

I don't know how that works.

Pretty sure they can adjust the hearing in a variety of ways....and with the assholes appointed recently in tterms of drumphism not hard to guess where this will be put per allowable guidelines....

 

[isolar8001]

The Republitards always say...let the states handle these things. (when they feel it's unfair to them)
Maybe the SC is just giving them what they asked for....Smith knew this and planned on it.
State already called BS on his immunity claim.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Think of it like if Trump wins the election there's 4 more years of making fun of him and MAGA.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Can't they just refuse to hear the case further?

Correct. The Supreme Court is not legally required to hear an appeal in cases. The odds are higher in cases that involve “big” issues but it’s not required.

 

[Mr._Clark]

There is much more in the pot besides earning potential. I believe there are at least 3 other areas being compensated for in such cases. Check it out what else and how much awarded.

Earnings potential is not a factor. Here's the jury verdict form:

 

[mtrycrafts]

Think of it like if Trump wins the election there's 4 more years of making fun of him and MAGA.

Be careful, you may end up in prison for such behavior.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Trump will remain gagged in the January 6 case, at least for now.

>>>A federal appeals court declined an effort Tuesday by former President Trump to have his challenge to a gag order in his election interference case heard by the full court, teeing up a likely Supreme Court battle over restrictions to his speech. . . . The D.C. Circuit’s refusal to rehear the case is likely to bring the issue to the Supreme Court next. Trump could petition the justices to review the gag order and also ask them to put it on hold in the meantime. . . . Agreeing to review Trump’s gag order, however, would mark the justices’ first intervention in any of Trump’s four criminal cases since he was charged. <<<

Appeals court declines further review of Trump Jan. 6 gag order

A federal appeals court declined an effort Tuesday by former President Trump to have his challenge to a gag order in his election interference case heard by the full court, teeing up a likely Supre…

thehill.com

I'd expect Trump to file a petition for cert, but I'm not so sure the Supreme Court will agree to take this. Just a hunch, but the gag order is a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Also, I suspect that many of the justices view Trump's antics as an attack on the judicial branch, and I doubt they want to enable him by revising the gag order or tossing it completely.

It's really hard to say though.

 

[highfigh]

The Republitards always say...let the states handle these things. (when they feel it's unfair to them)
Maybe the SC is just giving them what they asked for....Smith knew this and planned on it.
State already called BS on his immunity claim.

The 10th Amendment covers this-

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[highfigh]

Earnings potential is not a factor. Here's the jury verdict form:

View attachment 64810

I don't know Giuliani's net worth or the amount he has hidden, but if he's short on cash, I'm not sure he'll be able to pay this on paper route money and he's certainly not in physical shape to do that, so he'll probably need to have a news stand on a street corner.

 

[davidscott]

Rudy looks to be in deep dodo. He better hope Trump wins helps him out.

 

[Mr._Clark]

The 10th Amendment covers this-

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is true.

As a practical matter, very few cases have been decided based on the 10th Amendment. This is a pretty decent summary:

>>>The 10th Amendment . . . is generally considered to be nothing more than a stamp of approval on the system of government set up by the other provisions of the Constitution. However, it does stand for one particular principle: that the federal government . . . can’t force a state to use its own resources to comply with a federal regulation, statute, or program.The quintessential modern cases that illustrate this idea are New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997). In New York, the Court reviewed a Congressional program that used several different approaches to realize the goal of New York State complying with federal standards for radioactive waste. The Court held that . . . forcing N.Y. to take N.J.’s radioactive waste if certain deadlines were not met, was unconstitutional. This was so drastic a step that it was essentially the federal government compelling a state to comply with a federal mandate.<<<

The Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment, written into the Constitution with the other amendments of the Bill of Rights

constitutionallawreporter.com

 

[highfigh]

This is true.

As a practical matter, very few cases have been decided based on the 10th Amendment. This is a pretty decent summary:

>>>The 10th Amendment . . . is generally considered to be nothing more than a stamp of approval on the system of government set up by the other provisions of the Constitution. However, it does stand for one particular principle: that the federal government . . . can’t force a state to use its own resources to comply with a federal regulation, statute, or program.The quintessential modern cases that illustrate this idea are New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997). In New York, the Court reviewed a Congressional program that used several different approaches to realize the goal of New York State complying with federal standards for radioactive waste. The Court held that . . . forcing N.Y. to take N.J.’s radioactive waste if certain deadlines were not met, was unconstitutional. This was so drastic a step that it was essentially the federal government compelling a state to comply with a federal mandate.<<<

The Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment, written into the Constitution with the other amendments of the Bill of Rights

constitutionallawreporter.com

One example- the stated reason for SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade was to turn it over to the states but everyone freaked out and thinks it means abortion is now illegal. It will only be illegal until the states that will allow it write a bill making it legal. The ones who live in states where it won't be legal will have to move or travel to a state that allows it.

Not many cases have involved the 10th Amendment, but as in the cases which involve one or more Amendments, they're all important. The cases where the Federal Gov't compels a state to comply, those need to go to SCOTUS.

 

[lovinthehd]

One example- the stated reason for SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade was to turn it over to the states but everyone freaked out and thinks it means abortion is now illegal. It will only be illegal until the states that will allow it write a bill making it legal. The ones who live in states where it won't be legal will have to move or travel to a state that allows it.

Not many cases have involved the 10th Amendment, but as in the cases which involve one or more Amendments, they're all important. The cases where the Federal Gov't compels a state to comply, those need to go to SCOTUS.

No, SCOTUS acted on something no one asked them to more than returning it to the states. It should be a national rule in any case. If it's against your religion, ignore it.

 

[davidscott]

Unfortunately, it looks like trump will be the Republicans candidate. Sad they could have done so much better.

 

[highfigh]

No, SCOTUS acted on something no one asked them to more than returning it to the states. It should be a national rule in any case. If it's against your religion, ignore it.

But that's a perfect case for state's rights- for me, nothing is about religion but I won't post my thoughts on this topic.

Whether it 'should be a national rule' is up to who's asked.

OTOH, so many laws are being violated that I wonder why anyone would obey this.

 

[lovinthehd]

But that's a perfect case for state's rights- for me, nothing is about religion but I won't post my thoughts on this topic.

Whether it 'should be a national rule' is up to who's asked.

OTOH, so many laws are being violated that I wonder why anyone would obey this.

Some states have been aggressive about it as to "obeying". This is very much about the idiotic "christians" and their "beliefs".

 

[highfigh]

Some states have been aggressive about it as to "obeying". This is very much about the idiotic "christians" and their "beliefs".

It's not just Christians who look unfavorably at abortion, many others do, too. It's a matter of how strictly they follow.