SCOTUS

[BlueK]

The immunity ruling will be interesting. There is no way they grant complete immunity. At the same time, zero immunity is equally unlikely. Coming up with a standard for where the balance should lie will be tricky.

This would be called legislating from the bench. Both sides do it.

The Constitution says nothing about a president not being subject to the law in some circumstances when anyone else would be, but Congress could write a law about that. Absent such a law and strictly following the Constitution there shouldn't be a question here or a roadblock toward letting the trial proceed to determine if Trump broke laws or not.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The immunity ruling will be interesting. There is no way they grant complete immunity. At the same time, zero immunity is equally unlikely. Coming up with a standard for where the balance should lie will be tricky.

[frank ryan]

why arent they ruling on trumps immunity? should be an easy no right?

This is the big thing specter. I don't think all the conservative justices are hacks but I don't think it's paranoia to want more scrutiny of Thomas and Alito. Being a Supreme Court justice doesn't make someone immune to being corrupt. Basic psychology informs us that showering a person with millions and millions in gifts brings influence. Legal or not, that is what happened with Thomas.

[BlueK]

why arent they ruling on trumps immunity? should be an easy no right?

It's probably the 6 conservatives being far apart, with Thomas and Alito pretty close to wanting to grant close to everything Trump wants with the other four all at some place on the scale of granting former presidents some level of immunity but also working out what to tell the lower courts how to apply it to this case.

[Maximus]

SCOTUS rules 6-3 on the social media censorship case.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/..._term=35842956



They sided with the Biden administration. LOL @ the notion that they are mindless partisan hacks.

why arent they ruling on trumps immunity? should be an easy no right?

[Goatnapper'96]

SCOTUS rules 6-3 on the social media censorship case.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/..._term=35842956



They sided with the Biden administration. LOL @ the notion that they are mindless partisan hacks.

Alito believes in God so he is clearly a Christian Nationalist! Down with Trumpism and his use of mindless impugning rhetoric of those with whom he views as enemies!

[Jeff Lebowski]

SCOTUS rules 6-3 on the social media censorship case.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/..._term=35842956

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Biden administration in a landmark case dealing with government involvement in social-media censorship, finding that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue.

Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion asserting that two states and five social-media users do not have standing to contest the level of coordination between government agencies, nonprofits, and tech platforms in restricting content on social media.

They sided with the Biden administration. LOL @ the notion that they are mindless partisan hacks.

[falafel]

what exactly do you think " to return our country to a place of Godliness" as a scotus means?

SCOTUS justice should, in no situation, be using his religious believes to base his legal decisions on

1. "A place of Godliness" is an incredibly vague statement. I don't think you can draw any conclusions from that.

2. There is absolutely no way to divorce personal religious beliefs (or any personal beliefs) from a person's inherent bias. Not only that, but go read S.Ct. cases from the 1800s and 1900s and you'll see references to God all over the place.

[All-American]

does lack of standing equate the same thing as ruling against it? maybe it does. but to me seems a case with standing would go differently

Some cynics would suggest that the Court finds a lack of standing only where they want to find a lack of standing, and that if they wanted to issue a ruling, they would find a way to check the standing box.

I'm not THAT cynical, but even if you think there are justices ideologically driven to root out the anti-Christian practice of abortion and drive it from the shores of this Christian nation, we at least know that drive isn't enough to overcome what they think about Article III standing requirements.

[Moliere]

does lack of standing equate the same thing as ruling against it? maybe it does. but to me seems a case with standing would go differently

But wouldn't a Christian Nationalist find a way to take a court case that would allow them to ban the abortion pill nationwide? Are you telling me that a Christian Nationalist passed up that opportunity, an opportunity that might not present itself again?

AA is correct, we know who Alito is. He's been on the SCOTUS for almost two decades and he's been in law since the 1980s. He's a Christian and like all Christian he probably feels compelled to promote Christianity in his personal life. I'm sure his personal beliefs spill over into how he views the world and how he views the law, but I haven't seen any solid evidence that he is a Christian Nationalist.

[Maximus]

You are making the assumption that he bases his legal decisions on his religious beliefs. I just showed an example that is clearly wrong since I’m fairly positive his religious belief is that abortion is wrong.

does lack of standing equate the same thing as ruling against it? maybe it does. but to me seems a case with standing would go differently

[All-American]

I am no more concerned that Alito and Thomas are Christian Nationalists hell- (or heaven-) bent on imposing Christianity even at the cost of disregarding the Constitution than I am that Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are communists.

We know who Thomas and Alito are. They've been the way they are for decades. There's a reason all this is coming out now, when there is a 6-3 conservative majority on the bench, and not years earlier when the swing vote was Kennedy.

[Moliere]

what exactly do you think " to return our country to a place of Godliness" as a scotus means?

SCOTUS justice should, in no situation, be using his religious believes to base his legal decisions on

You are making the assumption that he bases his legal decisions on his religious beliefs. I just showed an example that is clearly wrong since I’m fairly positive his religious belief is that abortion is wrong.

[Maximus]

what exactly do you think " to return our country to a place of Godliness" as a scotus means?

SCOTUS justice should, in no situation, be using his religious believes to base his legal decisions on

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's a poor comparison. Real life communists aren't dominating the liberal political landscape. In the US it's not much of a thing. Communists are wielding social power and have access to the POTUS.

Believe me, I know a ton of people that think Biden is beholden to socialists/communists. And/or is one himself.

So my main point of contention with your position is that Christian Nationalists are new overblown phenomenon and nothing to worry about.

It only has something to do with the Supreme Court if it influences justices. I'm worried about Alito, but I'm not completely convinced he has fallen into all that. You may be right that worrying about Alito is unjustified, but that's different from saying Christian Nationalism is a new worry.

Thomas worries me the most. He was been evasive amount massive amount of financial gain he has received by very partisan donors. It's basic psychology that gifts of that magnitude influence people. I also think it's foolhardy to just dismiss the importance of justices' wives being attached to extremist elements.

I think having some or worry is rational. I would love to feel that my fears about Alito are unjustified.

And, maybe it doesn't, but it's stupid to be aware of how problematic

Identifying christian nationalism as a new and potentially worrying thing is rational.

Claiming that Alito and Thomas are likely christian nationalists is not rational.