By Ponderer February 29, 2024 10:35 pm Category: Crime (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

...Republican, billionaire-dick-sucking, Constitutional duty-screwing, corrupt, despicable whores. And they hold the record by tens of millions to be sure.

And you don't even have to take my word for it. With this taking on of Trump's immunity case they have essentially come out of the closet about it like they don't even give ashit anymore who knows it. They have left no rational doubt in anyone's imagination whatsoever. They aren't even trying to hide it anymore. They are so far in the tank to help Trump evade Justice that they can't wipe their asses with their sworn Constitutional duty fast enough to give him special treatment and do his bidding. Boy, Thomas ought to be finally getting that Gulfstream G5 he's been promised for so long outta this!

There is absolutely no legitimate reason for them to have taken the case up, or having done so, to push the date out so far into the election cycle, so as to accomplish nothing but to facilitate Trump's stalling bullshit. They can and have moved extremely fast on so many other far less critical cases. If it will help Trump to go fast, they go fast. If it will help Trump to go slow, they go slow. They've been doing it everyfuckingtime. What fools some of us were to ever think they wouldn't just do it again this time.

And in the end, they will of course find that he doesn't have the immunity he has deluded himself into thinking he has. There was nothing to deliberate for months about. It's a clear and simple case that he has no claim to any such immunity whatsoever. It's open and shut. All the lower courts found as much. But by God Almighty the conservative justices on the Supreme Court are gonna make damned sure that take every last second of their sweet fuckingtime to get around to it.

Fuckingcorrupt, treasonous, Trump-dick-sucking bastards.

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on March 1, 2024 3:31 am Fuckingcorrupt, treasonous, Trump-dick-sucking bastards. pb's prediction? They'll vote 9-0 against Trump. But, here's the thing, po and all you members of the woke, white electric limousine lovin progressive Swampcult,... ...the EFFINBill of Rights applies even to the most despicable citizen of our republic... ...in fact, that's the point of our republic. Liberty and justice FOR effinALL, eh?????! Even Donald Trump. by oldedude on March 1, 2024 4:44 am Bravo! BTW. I was wondering where the old po was. And then she appeared out of nowhere. I agree with Lead. Because they're going to hear arguments doesn't mean they'll side with trumpster. As I've believed from the beginning of this "issue," I can't see any legal reason they should side with him. It may not be 9-0, but I'll bet they'll kick it out. At least I hope so. The difference here is that it isn't because it trumpster that I think/hope he'll lose. It's the case per se. I don't like the precedence it will set for both trumpster and the future. So without the tirade, we're agreeing with you. by HatetheSwamp on March 1, 2024 5:13 am Y'know, OD, po has my dream job. Tenured Ivy League professor of ConLaw! Wow! My guess is that the Court may use the Trump appeal to attempt to define the extent of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution... something that I believe is a good idea... ...BECAUSE now that the Dem Swampcult has opened this window, y'know that the GOPs'll follow suit and do the same thing with every Dem president... just as they have since the Dems decided that the Senate exempts Supreme Court nominees from cloture votes [thank you, ChuckYou Schumer... we have Gorsuch, Kavanagh and Barrett because of you]... ...and the current GOP need to return serve on the Trump impeachments by conducting the Biden Crime Family impeachment inquiry. A little proactivity from the Court will be a good thing. You'd think with that brilliant legal mind, po'd know that. by oldedude on March 1, 2024 7:09 am My guess is that the Court may use the Trump appeal to attempt to define the extent of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution... something that I believe is a good idea... Absolutely. I'll echo your thought that the law (which the founders purposefully left vague) needs to be at least given good guidance and timelines. Definitions would help too. I only slightly disagree with po. This is something that has to be decided and figured out. The good thing is (you could argrue), we don't have an actual emergency that has to be figured out in 24 hours. That would create a huge opening for any Prez or VP to take over as a despot. So better now than later. by HatetheSwamp on March 1, 2024 7:33 am I think that it is a good thing that the highest court settles Trump's radical claims... and then offers definition for the sake of the future. Dems have chosen to go to great lengths... 4 indictments, 91 charges... against the chief opponent of their sitting president. This is Stalinesque. The worst of the spirit of a banana republic... and po, and CNN and MSNBC think that's a good thing. Who doesn't know that the GOPs will follow suit... unless that anti-democratic evil is resisted. by Indy! on March 1, 2024 10:38 am There's absolutely nothing to consider. The lower courts all made the correct OBVIOUS decision and this is not worth a LEGITIMATE Supreme Court's time. However we do not have a LEGITIMATE Supreme Court - we have the bought and sold Supreme CLOWNS who do whatever works for their corporate masters. by oldedude on March 1, 2024 5:08 pm So this is called "due Process."😱 Trumpster is legally requesting SCOTUS for a constitutional read. He has standing. Nothing more. I don't think it's worth it, but there it is. They agreed to take it. Whine about it if you want. I'm sure they'll listen just because it's "you." by Ponderer on March 1, 2024 5:46 pm Exactly, Indy!! I said in my opening statement that they are obviously going to rule that he does not have the immunity that he hallucinates that he has. Eventually. After they have taken literally as long as they possibly could to do it. And a trial on the 1/6 crimes of Trump almost certainly won't happen now until after the election. Thereby essentially giving Trump immunity for the purposes of this election and getting him the best chance to be elected again. Which is all the Conservative Supreme Whores give a flyingfuck about after all. Literally the only conceivable reason that they could have to have even agreed to hear the case in the first place is to stall for Trump. I'm open to any other rational suggestions... And as has been pointed out numerous times, they can move very quickly if they want to and if it will help Trump. They keep doing this kindashit for him! And they won't make any monumental Constitutional declarations once they present their verdict either. Oh HELL no. No historic rulings for the ages. They will rule on this case and they'll be done with it. And they will runaway as fast as they can to their nearest billionaire friend's hunting lodge to crash until the din dies down. The question before them is basically did Trump have total immunity for what he is accused of doing regarding the January 6th case because he was engaged in the official course of his duty as president and is therefore totally immune from any prosecution. And the conservative justices will eventually allow the court to finally rule that (And let's see how closely my prognostication of a quote eventually is...) "No! Of course not! Don't be silly. He obviously doesn't. He so totally and absolutely doesn't. The very idea!" Just as everyone in the world predicts and knows they will, legal scholar or not. Like they know that the sun will rise tomorrow. Because, this is supposed to be like, the United States of America, man. We aren't one of Trump's hero dictator countries. Not yet at least. So...! Shall we count the days... and weeks... and months... those fuckingimmoral, anti-Constitution, anti-democracy, fascist Republican assholes take to come to that utterly obvious and inescapable conclusion...? by oldedude on March 1, 2024 6:10 pm I love to see people with rising blood pressure and the visceral hatred of "the light of a thousand suns" I'm shocked the heart attack rate among sheeple isn't triple what it is. Or maybe it is but nobody has the balls to say it. Y'all ought to write SCOTUS and let them know. I'm sure they'll assist you. by Curt_Anderson on March 1, 2024 6:33 pm It's hard not the think that SCOTUS is aiding and abetting Trump's delay tactics. That's frustrating and annoying. Paradoxically, that's a good thing. It's a voter motivator. It would be better for democracy and I would prefer that Trump be stopped by vox populi in the November election rather than by a court ruling against him. Even if the court cases were expedited and a guilty verdict was reached, he'd appeal. As I said in another similar topic thread, non-Trump voters will realize they cannot screw around hoping for a deus ex machina (like a guilty verdict). It is up to us, the voters, to keep Trump out of the White House, by showing up and voting for Biden. by oldedude on March 1, 2024 7:38 pm It's hard not the think that SCOTUS is aiding and abetting Trump's delay tactics. Only if you have severe TDS. Or know absolutely nothing about how the government works. Either one and the lack of your ability to control something that you have no control over will push the little germans off the rails. by oldedude on March 1, 2024 8:11 pm curt et.al.- The other interesting issue with you (et.al.) is the complete lack of reality the FBI/DOJ is/was a pawn of the pedojoe administration, and before that, the obomber administration. That tells me a couple of facts. First, you don't have the knowledge or desire to look at any issue without your extremist vision. This is no better than any of the "MAGAs" you despise. They look at it in the same light. They are absolutely correct, and they hate you. You're no different. Both of you only choose to listen certain "news" (of which FoxNews is not the worst by a long shot), you're extremely low information voters, and you don't care to even think to learn anything about the political system you live in. You're happy being extremely low information. It reinforces your own hatred of the other side. There is no challenge in it, because you're led by other low information people. by Curt_Anderson on March 1, 2024 9:25 pm OD, You are projecting. by oldedude on March 2, 2024 1:59 am I don't think so. At all. I've can't remember you ever condemning pedojoe (or the left), and never saying trumpster (or the right) may be correct in anything, or at least giving them any sort of equal balance. Thusly the "good little german comments. You've protected pedojoe in everything. You argued against giving trumpster any of the same rights a rapist/murderer has in the court system. Daily, you nitpick some inane BS that just shows your TDS more and more. You're still on the "computer isn't valid" kick, when the DOJ admitted it is a valid piece of evidence. Same thing with the illegal activity of the DOJ. I have to explain that every time to you (et.al), when you're thinking things changed. You've continued to lie about the entire dossier information by continuing to use the old evidence that has been proven to be lies. This all wouldn't be so bad, but your knowledge of our government and legal systems is horrible at best. A little peruse through a valid source is all it would take. Most of these things are years old and have been disproven an admitted to even by the staunchest leftists when they have had to apologize. Publicly. by HatetheSwamp on March 2, 2024 3:37 am Bang on, OD. And, I don't get it. Curt seems to have turned off his brain for Joe, the Biden Crime Family and the Dems. Curiously, I don't remember him being like that during the Obama regime. My memory is that he was, certainly, an Obama supporter but thoughtful, reasonable and open minded. It's like he's channeling po. by oldedude on March 2, 2024 8:11 am I do agree with the obomber issue. Supporting your "choice" in politics, but when they screw up, you need to just roll your eyes and suck up the bad news. by Ponderer on March 2, 2024 8:52 am "It's hard not the think that SCOTUS is aiding and abetting Trump's delay tactics." -Curt "Only if you have severe TDS. Or know absolutely nothing about how the government works." -olde dude Well that's just a stupid thing to say, od. Actually quite pig-ignorant on its face. olde dude, could you give us even one single solitary example of a legitimate, legal reason why the conservative justices would want this to take literally as long as possible to decide this case? Let alone why they would even take it on in the first place, when they absolutely did not even have to, since they are going to inevitably agree with all the lower courts? by Indy! on March 2, 2024 9:08 am The good news is only the farthest right of the farthest right believes the Clowns are not operating on politics alone. If Joe wanted to get right with the left and maybe get elected again - he should expand the Court to 12 justices. Well... 7 justices and the 5 whores Trump and the other wingnuts bought to destroy justice in America. by HatetheSwamp on March 2, 2024 9:55 am olde dude, could you give us even one single solitary example of a legitimate, legal reason why the conservative justices would want this to take literally as long as possible to decide this case? po, The John Roberts Court believes in, uh, democracy. It overturned Roe v Wade but it didn't legalize abortion. It declared that abortion will be regulated... ...not by the Judicial Branch... ...but, "by the people and their (EFFIN) elected representatives." In last year's West Virginia EPA decision, it overturned EPA regulations precisely because EPA bureaucrats exceeded the authority granted to it by CONGRESS!... i.e. the people's representatives. I'm not a former Supreme Court clerk nor am I a tenured Ivy League law school professor (baha), but I am a very serious student of the Supreme Court. That Appeals Court decision denying Trump's claim of immunity was pristine. I think so. So do all of pb's Legal Goobers... ...except for one thing. It attempted to deny Trump his option to an en banc appeal. And, the only reason for that, as far as I can tell, was to speed up the trial process so that Jack Smith could have his trial before the election. Here's what pb thinks the Supreme Court is doing: Assuring that Trump receives due process under the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. I know that you don't want Trump to receive fair treatment under the Bill of Rights but, it's for the most despicable among us that the Bill of Rights exists. BTW, pb guesses that the Court will essentially rubber stamp the three judge panel's decision... and, that it will do it 9-0. But, it will accomplish two things that it deems important (and you don't). 1. It will provide due process to Donald Trump, and, 2. It will allow the PEOPLE... not judges... to determine the result of this election. "Of the people, by the people and for the people," man! by Curt_Anderson on March 2, 2024 10:28 am HtS, This decision regarding presidential immunity, has nothing to do with “democracy” or the “right of the people”. At best SCOTUS is not looking out for our democracy or for the people. Our founders decided long ago that nobody is above the law. We are not ruled by a king. Presidents do not have blanket immunity as Trump’s lawyers have argued. That is why Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. The Supreme Court has been slow walking this on Donald Trump’s behalf. It took them a month to write a one sentence statement announcing they needed more time to consider whether or not the president has immunity. Now they need another two months, so Clarence Thomas can go on a donor funded vacation and to decide if Donald Trump should be treated like every other president or like a medieval king. by HatetheSwamp on March 2, 2024 11:10 am This decision regarding presidential immunity, has nothing to do with “democracy” or the “right of the people”. Whoa Nelliebelle. That's not the point. Far from it. The question is why at least four members of the Court agreed to hear the case. The question of law is not the issue our friend po is raising. And, I splained my understanding. Our founders decided long ago that nobody is above the law. No. I disagree. When I read the very radical Bill of Rights, I see the exact opposite. OUR FOUNDERS DECIDED THAT NOBODY IS BELOW THE LAW, which is what you progressives want to be true for Trump. The Bill of Rights guarantees due process to everyone. Trump ain't asking for anything beyond what all of us can expect... because we are citizens. I'll repeat. I'm confident that, when Trump has received due process under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that his claim of immunity will be rejected. The Bill of Rights is in place for the sake of the most despicable among us. I'm convinced that the reason a sufficient number of Justices granted cert on Trump’s appeal is precisely because Trump is not BELOW the law. The Supreme Court has been slow walking this on Donald Trump’s behalf. Bull$#!t. The Supreme Court is notoriously deliberate. The 023 Dobbs decision ruled on a Mississippi law that was passed in EFFIN 2018! If anything is extraordinary about the Trump appeal, it's that the Court squeezed its hearing of arguments for this freakinfrigginEFFIN term at all. No. The case is being expedited. You've never entered a comment more patently false on SS. by Curt_Anderson on March 2, 2024 11:25 am "And, I splained my understanding." ---HtS Ah, there's your problem! No more needs to be said. by oldedude on March 2, 2024 11:35 am po- olde dude, could you give us even one single solitary example of a legitimate, legal reason why the conservative justices would want this to take literally as long as possible to decide this case? Let alone why they would even take it on in the first place, when they absolutely did not even have to, since they are going to inevitably agree with all the lower courts? First, I haven't read Lead's answer to this. There are a couple of things at play, none of which will liberals agree with. 1. This case revolves around a constitutional law that was ambiguous at best. So now it's being tested. SCOTUS needs to do their job. That is, give modern guidance to a vague law. As it's written, trumpster "may" have a shot at this. The "issue," like you say is about what is the extension of a Presidents' rights in "immunity." We ALL agree that it shouldn't be total. That's how you get despots. The lower courts have said "no." trumpster has legal standing regarding this. SCOTUS needs to step in and give boundaries of those rights for any future issue of total immunity rights to a present or former president. Is it a longer way around it? In your immediate gratifying mind? No. In the entire scheme of things? Absolutely. It gives guidance to other presidents' that want to do the same thing. In the future, they will have to challenge what SCOTUS says is "reasonable." That's a good thing. It makes it harder to draw outside the lines on this. It makes it so the next "trumpster" know they can't pull the same "thing" on the people, government, and system. Believe it or not, SCOTUS goes into session with a full annual calendar. With a few holes in it for things like this. Most of the session is full at the beginning of the session. When a case comes up, they fill the holes. This is when the next hole could be filled. Who's fault is it? I'm back at the dims not thinking that trumpster would fight tooth and nail, use every legal course of action given to him as a citizen of the US. Like I've said many times before. They should have known their enemy better. They "assumed" he would capitulate. They underestimated trumpster. I know it's not the answer you want to hear. Neither do I. Yet here we are. by HatetheSwamp on March 2, 2024 12:12 pm Well said, OD. As noted, pb's Legal Goobers tended to think that the Court wouldn't hear the appeal because the lower courts opinion was so well reasoned. But, there's the panel's extremely unusual step of denying Trump access to a hearing before the whole Appeals Court... for no justifiable reason that I can see. AND,... ...this is an issue of extraordinary importance: What is the extent of presidential immunity? from criminal prosecution... a question no Supreme Court has addressed even once since 1789. I'm sure the metaphorical Rachel, and Curt's Holy Trinity, are flummoxed but, really?, this is NBD. by oldedude on March 2, 2024 12:49 pm ...this is an issue of extraordinary importance: What is the extent of presidential immunity? from criminal prosecution... a question no Supreme Court has addressed even once since 1789. That's the piece I feel is of the up most importance. We looked at this in US Constitutional Law. It's the only thing in that entire semester everyone agreed on. How it was written sucked. Hard. And at that time, there was no one to challenge the law, so it would stay "as is" until there was a challenge. Well folks! This is it. by Ponderer on March 2, 2024 1:33 pm olde dude, thank you for your response. You in no way whatsoever gave any rational legal reason for them to delay this as long as possible as I asked, but I appreciate your attempt to at least give it a shot. I am not in any way saying that the SC doesn't have the right to hear the case or that Trump doesn't have the right to have his case appealed before them. It is certainly within their purview to do so. Just like they have with other legal issues they have helped Trump with by way of their blatant and politically biased timing. What I and a vast majority of the country are questioning right now is why else would the conservative justices needlessly take the very maximum amount of time to hear and judge on so blatantly simple, and slam-dunk of an open and shut case if not to facilitate and support Trump's stalling tactics? As they have several times recently already? I'll save you any further attempts at giving another answer... There simply is not one. They are being dedicated Trump cronies and are doing whatever is within their power to to help get him reelected. And they couldn't give a flyingfuck about the optics anymore. They aren't even trying to hide their corruption any longer. by Indy! on March 2, 2024 2:07 pm Even Nixon didn't bother trying this load of crap in court. by oldedude on March 2, 2024 2:33 pm What I and a vast majority of the country are questioning right now is why else would the conservative justices needlessly take the very maximum amount of time to hear and judge on so blatantly simple, and slam-dunk of an open and shut case if not to facilitate and support Trump's stalling tactics? Because until SCOTUS make a decision, the law isn't set. It will always be just like it is now. It really is that simple. You have your "opinion." that isn't a "legal reading." Period. End of story. Until the reading is made and there's a legal decision, trumpster has every "right" to legally claim he has amnesty. I know you don't like it. I don't either. Welcome to the legal system, where our (inclusive) "opinions" don't matter for any shit. Just like "due process😱." ps I told you that you weren't going to like what I said. Think about it. This is putting the GOP in more of a bind than it is the dims. If it's two days before the election and trumpster can't make a move and goes off the ticket. It's tough shit for the GOP. The dims already have their candidate set up. by HatetheSwamp on March 2, 2024 2:43 pm ...why else would the conservative justices needlessly take the very maximum amount of time... Maximum. Baha. The normal course of events would be to schedule arguments during the next term. by Indy! on March 2, 2024 3:16 pm What are you guys going to do when the Clowns give Trump and every president that follows him the same right to break the law with impunity that Putin has? What's your defense for that one? I hope you're at least working on one so you don't end up in the same place as the idiots trying to defend the in vitro fertilization disaster you have going on down there in Alabama. by Ponderer on March 2, 2024 3:19 pm "What I and a vast majority of the country are questioning right now is why else would the conservative justices needlessly take the very maximum amount of time to hear and judge on so blatantly simple, and slam-dunk of an open and shut case if not to facilitate and support Trump's stalling tactics?" -Ponderer "Because until SCOTUS make a decision, the law isn't set." -olde dude Nofuckingshit, od. The main question you are avoiding like the plague is: Rather than make the obvious and blatantly simple ruling in this case in a brisk and efficient manner, as they always do when it is of benefit to Trump... Why are the conservative justices going to take as long as they possibly can to come to a blatantly obvious decision while ensuring the elimination of the possibility of a trial and verdict in the federal felony case of Trump's involvement in the January Sixth Insurrection before the election? I would love to see you credibly contradict the reality of any of that, od. In whole or in part. Please, od. Knock yourself out. by Ponderer on March 2, 2024 3:20 pm Or you could answer the question. by HatetheSwamp on March 2, 2024 3:44 pm po, What are you teaching those kids in the Ivy League? It'd be the normal thing for the Court to take a case that came to it this late in the term and schedule it for the next term, not squeeze it in at the end of this term. And, based on what information do you suppose that it was only conservative Justices who agreed to hear this case!!!!!? That's not public knowledge as far as I know. You heard the questions from the EFFINliberal Justices when your precious 14th Amendment Colorado case came up... especially Ketanji Brown Jackson! We have no idea! I don't think that we can assume anything. by Ponderer on March 2, 2024 7:06 pm Seriously, od. I'd really like to hear your answer. by oldedude on March 2, 2024 7:26 pm I will tell you that nothing in the last several answers know anything about SCOTUS. they are completely illiterate. I gave you a definitive answer. to the "legal question." Period. it isn't my "idea." It's how SCOTUS chooses. indy. If you don't fukking like it. go to Russia. That is a very direct to your answer. I'm tired of your bullshit. ""Because until SCOTUS make a decision, the law isn't set." -olde dude Nofuckingshit, od." so you're agreeing with me. So STFU and listen for two seconds. by Ponderer on March 2, 2024 7:29 pm Thanks, olde dude. I go my answer even though you never gave one. by oldedude on March 2, 2024 7:43 pm I gave you an answer although you didn't like it, so you don't listen. I'm on your same side, and you fuck with the message? I'd say it's your listening that is the issue. by Ponderer on March 2, 2024 11:53 pm So you answered my question..? Okay then, humor me... In a nutshell, why has the Supreme Court chosen to take as long as possible to make a ruling on this case, as opposed to doing it expeditiously, as they are fully capable of doing and have done many times in the past, so that voters can know if they are voting for a felon or not in November? Try to make the answer that you already think you have given me as short and concise as possible, od. It shouldn't take you several paragraphs. This'll be a good exercise for you. by HatetheSwamp on March 3, 2024 3:16 am ...why has the Supreme Court chosen to take as long as possible to make a ruling on this case, as opposed to doing it expeditiously...? They haven't, po. They rushed through that Colorado 14th Amendment case... and STILL haven't been able to work through the issue of publishing a ruling. And, that's with, based on the Justices' questions, with wide agreement. I don't want to think of you as a narcissist, po, but, I'll tell you. "I want it and I want it NOW!?" That's the way narcissists operate. As I noted to Curt, that much-hated 023 Dobbs decision upheld a law passed five years earlier...in 023. That's the normal pace. The Court is precisely what the lynch mob ain't. Ah. Maybe that is your problem. by HatetheSwamp on March 3, 2024 5:03 am Po, Re: "...as opposed to doing it expeditiously, as they are fully capable of doing and have done many times in the past,..." Really? Humor us. Give us three examples of the Supreme Court deciding expeditiously. What they're doing with your precious 14th Amendment Colorado case is expeditious to the max... and, still, no ruling. Taking the immunity case FOR THIS TERM, is expeditious for the Supreme Court... as far as I know. But, enlighten us, please. by Ponderer on March 5, 2024 6:57 am "I gave you an answer although you didn't like it, so you don't listen. I'm on your same side, and you fuck with the message?" -olde dude You are just posting irrelevant stuff to my question. You have been totally avoiding my question, olde dude, which has been why has the Supreme Court decided to slow walk the Trump immunity issue when it has the power to go as quickly as they have a mind to when it suits them? Look, od. Here are just four examples of cases that the Supreme Court moved very expeditiously on when it wanted to and believed there was a need to: • Biden's order on student debt relief. The Supreme Court stepped in a little over a month after Biden issued his order. • Biden's extension on the Trump era eviction ban. The Supreme Court stepped in only three weeks after Biden enacted the extension and ruled it unconstitutional. • Bush v. Gore We all know how fast they stepped in on that one. Pretty much the quickest action the Supreme Court has ever taken on any case. • Nixon refusing to release tapes. The Supreme Court knew the historic Constitutional importance of this case and stepped in and decided extremely fast. I don't believe that they were even in session at the time. olde dude, please notice I did not comment on the merits of any of those cases (Although I certainly wanted to). All I am saying here is that the Supreme Court can move extremely fast when it has its own reasons to and there is ample precedent of them doing it. So od, my question is why, with a legally established oath-breaker and insurrectionist seeking the presidency of the United States, do the conservatives on the Supreme Court want by their direct actions to slow walk this case that they didn't even have to take, thereby ensuring that Trump's trial doesn't take place until after the election? Why else would they possibly slow walk the shit out of this case if not to blatantly and in an extremely biased fashion help Trump get elected? This is the question that you and the other MAGA Hats are avoiding like the plague. Chris explains what I am getting at very succinctly and accurately in that third link. cnn.com nytimes.com msnbc.com by HatetheSwamp on March 5, 2024 7:10 am Perhaps my most joyous SS memories are of po, realizing that the argument is lost, offering a "Do you still beat your wife" question. Ol po's not gone there as often as po has in the past, but this is classic. It brings back memories of the old SS Forum. Thanks for the memories, po: You are just posting irrelevant stuff to my question. You have been totally avoiding my question, olde dude, which has been why has the Supreme Court decided to slow walk the Trump immunity issue when it has the power to go as quickly as they have a mind to when it suits them? When you go down, you go down in flames... and in style. Thanks for the memories. Why else would they possibly slow walk the shit out of this case if not to blatantly and in an extremely biased fashion help Trump get elected? This is the question that you and the other MAGA Hats are avoiding like the plague. Answer. There's no reason to expedite this case... ...unless it is to enable the Biden Administration's lawfare campaign against Trump... and, to side with Joe Biden in the election. Question, po. Why should the United States Supreme Court enable the lawfare? by Indy! on March 5, 2024 8:06 am If the trial happens after the election, most likely it will never happen. There will be the claims that a president can't be put on trial and that "it's a NATIONAL SECURITY issue!!!!" (lip quiver) as if Trump would know anything about that except how to get out of the draft. by HatetheSwamp on March 5, 2024 9:46 am Indy!, I think you just predicted a Trump victory. How bout them bananas, there, po!!!!? by Ponderer on March 5, 2024 5:14 pm Indy!, don't waste your time on that despicable, slimy asshole. He couldn't give a flyingfuck about the United States of America remaining the Untied States of America. He is a lost cause. Hate is both a dick and an asshole. Thereby not only requiring him to, but also making it physically possible for him to go fuckhimself. by oldedude on March 5, 2024 5:50 pm I find your "assessment" interesting. You're the one refusing to give a person given constitutional rights. mmmmmm.... so you believe that only the people you believe should have "rights" are the people you agree with? I could go on with pages about Hitler and the multi-colored triangles you support in the Naziesque world. Especially if you are willing to cut off "rights" given to those in the US for only the ones you "prefer." We can turn this six ways to Sunday. All of them are bad for you. by oldedude on March 5, 2024 6:00 pm po- "In a nutshell, why has the Supreme Court chosen to take as long as possible to make a ruling on this case, as opposed to doing it expeditiously, as they are fully capable of doing and have done many times in the past, so that voters can know if they are voting for a felon or not in November?" I gave you the answer. They have "X" number of open dates. They take their cases as they're asked for. The dims have used their three "wishes" already. Tough shit on the rest. AND they've only left them for the next session. So it's no big loss. Ya know what? Suck it up buttercup. Welcome to the real world. The world doesn't revolve around you. I know that's shocking. But it doesn't. Get over yourself and your fukking ego. OR you can complain. Send it to SCOTUS via email. I'm sure they'll answer you. And bend to your wishes 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣! by Ponderer on March 5, 2024 8:39 pm "You're the one refusing to give a person given constitutional rights." -olde dude No I am not. That is absolutely not what I have done anywhere on this forum or my life. You are mistaken. "so you believe that only the people you believe should have "rights" are the people you agree with?" -olde dude No. That is absolutely not what I believe. You are simply wrong. "I could go on with pages about Hitler and the multi-colored triangles you support in the Naziesque world." -olde dude While I am sure such a monologue would be quite entertaining, it would have nothing factual at all to do with me. I have no idea of what poppycock you are referring to. You are delusional. "Especially if you are willing to cut off "rights" given to those in the US for only the ones you "prefer." We can turn this six ways to Sunday. All of them are bad for you." -olde dude I am willing do do no such thing. You are a demented, wildly, and frantically projecting lunatic. "I gave you the answer. They have "X" number of open dates. They take their cases as they're asked for." -olde dude And they are totally capable of and empowered to set and rearrange their schedules if they deem it necessary. Again, as they have in cases that would benefit Trump to be quick about. Or how they did for W in order to hand him the election. So my original question still has received no legitimate, rational answer... Why else would the conservatives on the Supreme Court possibly slow walk the shit out of this case if not to blatantly and in an extremely biased fashion help Trump get elected? I'm sorry, od, but Well that's just how the schedule worked out, is just a pathetically ludicrous excuse for an answer, given the Supreme Court's history. You answer boils down essentially as, "That's just the way they did it." And that wallows in pathetic. But again, I do really appreciate your attempts to try to come up with something that even vaguely resembles an answer. by oldedude on March 6, 2024 1:43 am Actually, it was more of a "the world doesn't rotate around your schedule" answer, or "you blew your chance by demanding everyone else's world is on your schedule" answer. Either way, everyone else's world doesn't rotate around you." and "I can't believe you have such a lack of "understanding" of other human beings, than to think they are on "your" "Schedule."" You might want to contact them to see why they couldn't change their schedule to suit you. My guess is that you need to get right on that to tell SCOTUS you are so "important" to the world that it rotates around you. I can't believe you're so egotistical you believe their world rotates around you. And your whims. by HatetheSwamp on March 6, 2024 3:21 am Why else would the conservatives on the Supreme Court possibly slow walk the shit out of this case if not to blatantly and in an extremely biased fashion help Trump get elected? I just checked. The Court already has arguments scheduled through October of next term. If it was slow walking the immunity claim, it'd slot arguments in for November... ...or, EFFINlater. by HatetheSwamp on March 6, 2024 4:04 am "You're the one refusing to give a person given constitutional rights." -olde dude No I am not. That is absolutely not what I have done anywhere on this forum or my life. You are mistaken. -po Thing is, po, you are, indeed, refusing to give Trump his constitutional rights. That 9-0 Supreme Court decision means many things and one thing it means that people who think as you think are, absolutely and precisely, wanting to deny Trump his Bill of Rights rights. You can deny that. But, in real life, according to all the Justices on the Supreme Court, even all of the progressives, you want to deny Trump his most essential and basic rights granted to "We the people." By all means, po, opposed Trump vehemently, passionately. Join OD and pb. But,... Please, po. Join us in the real world. by Ponderer on March 6, 2024 6:49 am "Actually, it was more of a "the world doesn't rotate around your schedule" answer [...]" -olde dude And actually, that is an even more ridiculously and asinine excuse for an answer to my question than your last attempt. It appears that either you have absolutely no understanding of what "answering" a question even means, or you simply have your own reasons for avoiding my perfectly logical and evidence based claim which my question is based on. "Thing is, po, you are, indeed, refusing to give Trump his constitutional rights." -olde dude Oh I am...? Really? Which constitutional rights am I trying to deny him? His constitutional right to a speedy trial...? Or his constitutional right to have his buddies on the Supreme Court ensure that his trial is drawn out as long as possible so that it can't be a detriment to him in the upcoming election...? olde dude, I am not denying him anything. How in the world am I denying him anything? I want with all my heart for Trump to have his day in court. As does the majority of the American people. What the conservatives on this Supreme Court are denying the voting citizens of the United States is the outcome of a trail of a candidate for president who wiped his ass with his sworn constitutional duty and fomented, supported and gave aid and comfort to a coup against the country by attacking the free and fair results of an election. Look, I get it, od. You flaming MAGA Hats don't want him to stand trial because he will obviously be found to be extremely guilty. Trump knows this himself. And both you and he know that him being a convicted felon instead of just an indicted one will absolutely kill his chances of winning the presidency. You and the conservative justices on the Supreme Court would rather see your felonious, insurrectionist, mob boss con man seated again in the oval office by means of keeping that valuable knowledge from the voting public than to see Justice done and the Constitution supported and protected. I get it. If it costs this country it's Constitution and its foundation in the law for your guy to win, then so be it. And that's why you can't/won't answer my question. Be assured. I get it alright. by HatetheSwamp on March 6, 2024 6:54 am po, OD's even less MAGA Hat than pb. But, admittedly more MAGA than Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Brown Jackson who, by your definition are also MAGAs. Baha! You're sooooooo silly when you slip into full subjectivity. by Ponderer on March 6, 2024 7:00 am And od, you act like I am the only person saying this. I have seen a constant parade of expert legal scholars and judges and Supreme Court attorneys all coming to the same obvious conclusion and just as aghast as I am about the flagrant favoritism the conservatives on the court are laying at Trump's feet. by HatetheSwamp on March 6, 2024 7:24 am And od, you act... Baha! We know you ain't t'only one sayin this. Yours is standard dogma among your metaphorical Rachel and Curt's Holy Trinity gang. But, note. Your metaphorical Rachel and Curt's Holy Trinity raved over the Colorado act of removing Trump from their ballot... ...which even progressive Supreme Court Justices shot down. pb's been watching MSNBC and CNN. And, all you do is feed the flames of the preferences and prejudices that you bring with you to every moment of your life. But, there's that 9-0 decision... including progressives, baha. We'd gladly welcome to join us in the real world. by oldedude on March 6, 2024 1:06 pm First of all, Lead. I agree with you regarding post #51. That 9-0 decision is an insult to the sheep. What it says is "are you so stupid to give away one of the basic criminal "rights" of the free world just to "test" this?" po- "You're the one refusing to give a person given constitutional rights." -olde dude No I am not. That is absolutely not what I have done anywhere on this forum or my life. You are mistaken. "so you believe that only the people you believe should have "rights" are the people you agree with?" -olde dude No. That is absolutely not what I believe. You are simply wrong. "Especially if you are willing to cut off "rights" given to those in the US for only the ones you "prefer." We can turn this six ways to Sunday. All of them are bad for you." -olde dude I am willing do do no such thing. You are a demented, wildly, and frantically projecting lunatic. I'm going to answer this all at once, for you and curt. My apologies to indy. Sorry dude, they still don't get it. po and curt. For over a month of daily posts you kept insisting "you" saw trumpster being seditious. I thought this was ended. Your insistence that there doesn't need a legal "due process" in this case shows that you are both willing to suspend the legal rules that all others that stand accused of any other crime enjoy in the US. The basics of our legal system. Here, even is a person is accused of terrorism against the government, or heinous crimes of murdering families and desecrating their bodies are still afforded a right to trial before being declared guilty of a crime. You both still don't believe this is true for trumpster. You still believe your "feelings" equate to a legal trial. That presents a huge problem to start with. And you still completely believe it's the conservatives that want to do away with our Republic. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page