Supreme Court Anyone?

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member

Justice Elena Kagan was worried about the ethics of accepting bagels from friends, while Clarence Thomas was enjoying expensive vacations paid for by a GOP megadonor: report

  • Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan once turned down a care package of bagels and lox, per Forward.
  • She was concerned she could be violating the court's ethics rules for accepting gifts, friends said.
  • Meanwhile, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was accepting lavish holidays from a GOP megadonor.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
do you have any specific indicators (w/link) that this is the case? I reject indirect arguments based on timing.
Why wasn't he indicted over the Mueller report obstruction of justice or the Stormy Daniels hush money cases before they allowed the clock to run out? Garland won't announce his is timing things, but he never started any serious investigation of J6 until after the J6 committee was finished and when Jack took over, he immediately grabbed the bull by the balls. I don't expect Garland to leave evidence laying around, even if he never broke the law and acted inside his prosecutorial discretion. He never even breathed a word about it to Jack or Joe, but Donald could be in a cage much quicker than he will be, that is kind of obvious to most people. These investigations of Trump except for sucking his ass to get the stolen documents back, never really started until Jack was appointed on November 18, 2022.

A link to evidence in this matter is an absurd request, Garland would never speak a word of it, since he might have to testify over it one day.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Why wasn't he indicted over the Mueller report obstruction of justice or the Stormy Daniels hush money cases before they allowed the clock to run out? Garland won't announce his is timing things, but he never started any serious investigation of J6 until after the J6 committee was finished and when Jack took over, he immediately grabbed the bull by the balls. I don't expect Garland to leave evidence laying around, even if he never broke thaw and acted inside his prosecutorial discretion. He never even breathed a word about it to Jack or Joe, but Donald could be in a cage much quicker than her will be, that is kind of obvious to most people. These investigations of Trump except for sucking his ass to get the stolen documents back, never really started until Jack was appointed on November 18, 2022.

A link to evidence in this matter is an absurd request, Garland would never speak a word of it, since he might have to testify over it one day.
Protection is a positive thing. It isn’t the absence of something. So without a statement or other discrete element that is protective, no.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
do you have any specific indicators (w/link) that this is the case? I reject indirect arguments based on timing.
https://medium.com/politically-speaking/why-is-merrick-garland-protecting-donald-trump-f738d1230ff5

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/02/why-is-merrick-garland-defending-trumps-boeing-settlement.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/3499106-press-is-merrick-garland-working-for-donald-trump/

Not hard facts...But interesting, none the less.
I don't believe for one minute that Garland is actively protecting trump, but something is making him so overly cautious that trump, and likely Garland as well, will be dead and in the grave of advanced old age before he's ever indicted.
Something is going on that we do not have all, in fact, hardly any of the facts about...And I would very much like to know what the fuck it is.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Protection is a positive thing. It isn’t the absence of something. So without a statement or other discrete element that is protective, no.
Semantics, justice delayed is justice denied, but in this case, he has good reason and I'm not really arguing against the delay, but saying there was a delay, and he did ignore crimes and let the clock run out on others that were slam dunk cases. He has his ass well and truly covered with a future republican congress and any testimony he might have to give. He waited until after the election to appoint Jack and set him loose on Trump, including the very low hanging fruit of the MAR documents crimes. Jack is not fucking around, but I'm pretty sure Garland did, it can't be proved and even if it was it was perfectly legal and within his powers. Garland wasn't protecting Trump as much as setting him and the GOP up for a major fall in 24 when it will count the most. He did not know if the republicans would have a red wave in 22 or lose the senate by the slimmest of margins.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Semantics, justice delayed is justice denied, but in this case, he has good reason and I'm not really arguing against the delay, but saying there was a delay, and he did ignore crimes and let the clock run out on others that were slam dunk cases. He has his ass well and truly covered with a future republican congress and any testimony he might have to give. He waited until after the election to appoint Jack and set him loose on Trump, including the very low hanging fruit of the MAR documents crimes. Jack is not fucking around, but I'm pretty sure Garland did, it can't be proved and even if it was it was perfectly legal and within his powers. Garland wasn't protecting Trump as much as setting him and the GOP up for a major fall in 24 when it will count the most. He did not know if the republicans would have a red wave in 22 or lose the senate by the slimmest of margins.
It is not semantics when it uncovers an excessive claim. To claim protection requires showing the specific and positive protective acts. Thus my pushback.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
https://medium.com/politically-speaking/why-is-merrick-garland-protecting-donald-trump-f738d1230ff5

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/02/why-is-merrick-garland-defending-trumps-boeing-settlement.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/3499106-press-is-merrick-garland-working-for-donald-trump/

Not hard facts...But interesting, none the less.
I don't believe for one minute that Garland is actively protecting trump, but something is making him so overly cautious that trump, and likely Garland as well, will be dead and in the grave of advanced old age before he's ever indicted.
Something is going on that we do not have all, in fact, hardly any of the facts about...And I would very much like to know what the fuck it is.
Yeah, like Garland is gonna have a meeting or conversation about these aspects of Trump's crimes and the timing of his prosecution with anybody, because he might have to testify one day. Does Joe seem concerned about the pace and timing of the investigation? Any democrats complaining loudly?
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
It is not semantics when it uncovers an excessive claim. To claim protection requires showing the specific and positive protective acts. Thus my pushback.
Lack of action is an action in this case and my primary reason for holding this opinion is the Mueller report and the Stormy Daniels hush money case that Cohen did the time for, and NY is prosecuting him for now. I have no problem with the timing of things and neither does Joe or most democrats lately and that per se is a very strong indicator that they are happy. It is more of an observation than a criticism and the claim is by no means excessive, and the delay has been noted by many. Positive acts right at the beginning are lack of action on the Mueller report and the Stormy Daniels case before the clock ran out and even if it did, he could have challenged the statute of limitations due to Trump's prosecutorial immunity as POTUS.

We are not trying to prove a court case here but backing up our opinions with reasonable facts and assertions. Garland has his reasons and motives that we can only guess at, but he is a political animal too and is the AG and that is the general in defending and protecting the constitution, Jack is his point man leading the charge.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Lack of action is an action in this case and my primary reason for holding this opinion is the Mueller report and the Stormy Daniels hush money case that Cohen did the time for, and NY is prosecuting him for now. I have no problem with the timing of things and neither does Joe or most democrats lately and that per se is a very strong indicator that they are happy. It is more of an observation than a criticism and the claim is by no means excessive, and the delay has been noted by many. Positive acts right at the beginning are lack of action on the Mueller report and the Stormy Daniels case before the clock ran out and even if it did, he could have challenged the statute of limitations due to Trump's prosecutorial immunity as POTUS.

We are not trying to prove a court case here but backing up our opinions with reasonable facts and assertions. Garland has his reasons and motives that we can only guess at, but he is a political animal too and is the AG and that is the general in defending and protecting the constitution, Jack is his point man leading the charge.
I agree with some of what you say here. But I do not count incidental advantage accruing to that man as the result of slow movement in DOJ, or more likely the absence of disadvantage, as protection.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I agree with some of what you say here. But I do not count incidental advantage accruing to that man as the result of slow movement in DOJ, or more likely the absence of disadvantage, as protection.
The point is, Joe and the democrats are not exactly unhappy with the situation, and everybody expected 2022 to be a blow out for the democrats, even after the J6 report. Trump has never been treated like a normal person by the justice system, by, luck, money, or gaming the system. I'm not saying Garland actively protected Trump, but he did it passively and once he handed things off to Jack, it was game over for Donald, Jack does not fuck around, and I've seen no indication that he is. When he nails Trump's ass it will be nailed very well indeed.

In the meantime, Donald is keeping every republican rival at bay and destroyed meatball Ron in a few weeks, he is becoming the republicans only option even before the primaries. The GOP house has to stick with him and the republicans in the senate are split. It sure looks like Trump will be running from a cell to me, if he is not disqualified over J6. Timing is everything I guess.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Bribery is legal, how convenient! Gimme a fucking break...

Then more rigidly define that law, and start applying it to yourselves, retroactively...fucking weasels...
 

GoatSoup

Well-Known Member
Yeah, like Garland is gonna have a meeting or conversation about these aspects of Trump's crimes and the timing of his prosecution with anybody, because he might have to testify one day. Does Joe seem concerned about the pace and timing of the investigation? Any democrats complaining loudly?
It's not like Democrats don't have backroom conversations about how to game the system. Look at LBJ's Tonkin Gulf lies, Obama's extrajudicial Killing of Americans and other such fuckery over the years. #Gutless has gamed the system for two years when t was a slam dunk that TFG was guilty, and the False electors were begging to be prosecuted, but no charges have been filed yet. Evne Jack has not pressed the document case yet, despite the seriousness of the charges.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Supreme Court to decide South Carolina racial gerrymander case
The Supreme Court on Monday announced it will determine whether South Carolina racially gerrymandered one of its congressional districts.
A three-judge district court panel in January ordered new maps be drawn after finding the state’s 1st Congressional District, as drawn by Republican state lawmakers, was specifically designed to dilute the power of Black voters.

The Supreme Court justices, in a brief, unsigned order, as is typical, agreed to hear the Republicans’ bid to reverse the lower decision, setting up a major redistricting case for the Supreme Court’s next annual term. The case is likely to be argued this fall.

The longtime Republican district runs along much of South Carolina’s coast and is currently represented by Rep. Nancy Mace (R).
In 2020, Mace narrowly defeated her Democratic opponent, who had won the seat in a major upset two years earlier. Last year, after district lines were redrawn, Mace won reelection by nearly 14 percentage points. The district is rated “likely Republican” for the next election cycle by the Cook Political Report.

A resident of the district and the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP challenged the redrawn lines, winning a partial victory at the district court earlier this year.
The three Democratic-appointed judges ruled against the challengers in their other claims while agreeing with them that state lawmakers’ shifting some 30,000 African Americans in Charleston County to a nearby district “was more than a coincidence” and violated the 14th and 15th Amendments.

The Republican state lawmakers then appealed to the justices.

“The three-judge panel abandoned all pretext of extraordinary caution in this case,” their attorneys wrote in court filings. “In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s ‘good faith.’”

The challengers to the map contended the maps are a racial gerrymander and were designed with a discriminatory purpose, asking the court to affirm the lower ruling.

“Because the panel correctly applied settled standards, the Court should summarily affirm,” the challengers wrote to the justices. “The panel had ample evidence to support its findings and conclusions. That includes direct and circumstantial proof of race-based intent by the Enacted Plan’s legislative architect and mapmaker — the same kind this Court has repeatedly relied on in the past.”
 
Top