Donald Trump

This the hapless Alina Habba, one of Trump's lawyers in... one of the cases going on (NY tax one, I think) on Hannity on Fox:

“I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court, I have faith in them. You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place. He'll step up.”

The quiet bit out loud again.

Puts Kavanaugh in a bit of a bind: support Trump's side and look like his credibility is gone, or go with the other side.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
This the hapless Alina Habba, one of Trump's lawyers in... one of the cases going on (NY tax one, I think) on Hannity on Fox:

“I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court, I have faith in them. You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place. He'll step up.”

The quiet bit out loud again.

Puts Kavanaugh in a bit of a bind: support Trump's side and look like his credibility is gone, or go with the other side.
Click to expand...

I mentioned in a post a few weeks back on here but Roberts and Kavanaugh are the members of SCOTUS who have allied in clear support for traditionally conservative rulings regardless of party allegiances. And I’m 99% confident Roberts fucking hates Trump and his constant undermining of the court’s independence.

It doesn’t really get more traditionally conservative than “the constitution says you can’t be on the ballot” and “states get to decide how their elections are run”. In fact the Maine ruling included this quote, which is quite funny:

“[A state’s] legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”

That quote is from Gorsuch, Trump’s first appointed SCOTUS nominee.

It’s no surprise to see them targeting Kavanaugh specifically with comments like these. His form suggests if anybody is going to flip it’s him or Roberts.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
I mentioned in a post a few weeks back on here but Roberts and Kavanaugh are the members of SCOTUS who have allied in clear support for traditionally conservative rulings regardless of party allegiances. And I’m 99% confident Roberts fucking hates Trump and his constant undermining of the court’s independence.

It doesn’t really get more traditionally conservative than “the constitution says you can’t be on the ballot” and “states get to decide how their elections are run”. In fact the Maine ruling included this quote, which is quite funny:

“[A state’s] legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”

That quote is from Gorsuch, Trump’s first appointed SCOTUS nominee.

It’s no surprise to see them targeting Kavanaugh specifically with comments like these. His form suggests if anybody is going to flip it’s him or Roberts.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing that from you. I've had the opinion too that some of the SCOTUS judges aren't in Trump's camp for certain, and they're looking at the next 30 years rather than the next 4.

It's gangsterism, isn't it - any sane person wouldn't be saying it out loud.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
This the hapless Alina Habba, one of Trump's lawyers in... one of the cases going on (NY tax one, I think) on Hannity on Fox:

“I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court, I have faith in them. You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place. He'll step up.”

The quiet bit out loud again.

Puts Kavanaugh in a bit of a bind: support Trump's side and look like his credibility is gone, or go with the other side.
Click to expand...
I don't think it does really. Ask what happened to Nixon when the Watergate tapes case went to the SC. 8-0 against (Rehnquist recused himself since he'd worked for the administration). Nixon sputtered on about how the justices he put there (Blackmun and then not sure of the others) "failed to support him" but the Court was furious with Nixon for his rhetoric about the Court. In this case, we have plants like Thomas and Alito but I wouldn't it put it past the others to give Trump a right padding here. And as @SkyBlueFlux points out, constitutional conservatives aren't in any kind of bind jurisprudence-consistency-wise unless they support Trump here.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
I mentioned in a post a few weeks back on here but Roberts and Kavanaugh are the members of SCOTUS who have allied in clear support for traditionally conservative rulings regardless of party allegiances. And I’m 99% confident Roberts fucking hates Trump and his constant undermining of the court’s independence.

It doesn’t really get more traditionally conservative than “the constitution says you can’t be on the ballot” and “states get to decide how their elections are run”. In fact the Maine ruling included this quote, which is quite funny:

“[A state’s] legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”

That quote is from Gorsuch, Trump’s first appointed SCOTUS nominee.

It’s no surprise to see them targeting Kavanaugh specifically with comments like these. His form suggests if anybody is going to flip it’s him or Roberts.
Click to expand...

MillionMilesAway said:
I remember seeing that from you. I've had the opinion too that some of the SCOTUS judges aren't in Trump's camp for certain, and they're looking at the next 30 years rather than the next 4.

It's gangsterism, isn't it - any sane person wouldn't be saying it out loud.
Click to expand...


I think it’ll be 7-2. Kavanaugh and ACB on trumps side.

But then maybe they’ll just decline to hear it if Trump will lose, it’s less embarassing for everyone given Trump will be campaigning on his 3 Supreme Court appointments it would be awkward if Gorsuch fucks him.

But can he campaign if he loses this? More states will follow.


Honestly I just can’t get a feeling either way on this one. The law should be clear, but he always gets away with things, so I’m going to assume Trump will be successful until he’s not.

I also think there’s some merit in the idea it will be bad if he’s struck off. Long term it will be good, reality and law has to catch up with MAGA eventually, but imagine Trump with nothing to lose - he’s not going to go quietly, there could be a lot of scenes like Jan 6th all over the Republican heartland.

I’d much rather a Biden win over Trump in an election over Biden beating Haley or De Santis with trumps mob thinking the deep state blocked him.

But then again…they’ll think that even if he loses fair and square again…
 
Last edited:
SkyBlueFlux said:
I mentioned in a post a few weeks back on here but Roberts and Kavanaugh are the members of SCOTUS who have allied in clear support for traditionally conservative rulings regardless of party allegiances. And I’m 99% confident Roberts fucking hates Trump and his constant undermining of the court’s independence.

It doesn’t really get more traditionally conservative than “the constitution says you can’t be on the ballot” and “states get to decide how their elections are run”. In fact the Maine ruling included this quote, which is quite funny:

“[A state’s] legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”

That quote is from Gorsuch, Trump’s first appointed SCOTUS nominee.

It’s no surprise to see them targeting Kavanaugh specifically with comments like these. His form suggests if anybody is going to flip it’s him or Roberts.
Click to expand...

FogBlueInSanFran said:
I don't think it does really. Ask what happened to Nixon when the Watergate tapes case went to the SC. 8-0 against (Rehnquist recused himself since he'd worked for the administration). Nixon sputtered on about how the justices he put there (Blackmun and then not sure of the others) "failed to support him" but the Court was furious with Nixon for his rhetoric about the Court. In this case, we have plants like Thomas and Alito but I wouldn't it put it past the others to give Trump a right padding here. And as @SkyBlueFlux points out, constitutional conservatives aren't in any kind of bind jurisprudence-consistency-wise unless they support Trump here.
Click to expand...
Agree that a rationale reading of the laws would lead anyone, unbiased, to conclude the state has the right to exclude Trump under the insurrection clause.

But.

There is just enough to give a biased judge a reason. If you read the clause is specifically calls out some roles, but not the POTUS. That's enough to give the right wingers cover. It ignores the mass of reason why that's not a valid reading of the intention. But its enough to make this a question of how far do they want to go to help him.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.