Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

The Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court Hold the Record as the World's Most Expensive Whores...
Crime by Ponderer     February 29, 2024 10:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (20 comments) [200 views]


Ex-Jim Biden business partner disputes loan testimony before Congress
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 3:07 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (1 comments) [7 views]


James Comer is not sure an impeachment of Biden is warranted
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 4:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (3 comments) [38 views]


Bad news for the Doddering Old Fool: Polls stagnant since the Hur Report
President by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 4:57 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [23 views]


James Comer has been big on promises, short on delivery. MAGA is feeling let down.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 1:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments) [63 views]


So, Curt, can you still say that there's "NO EVIDENCE" that Joe was involved in the Crime Family?
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (15 comments) [113 views]


Oversight and Judiciary Committees Release Hunter Biden Transcript
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 5:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (13 comments) [97 views]


Is Trump going broke? Is he bringing the GOP down with him?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 5:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [112 views]


RFK Jr. Backs Sen. Rand Paul to Succeed McConnell...
Politics by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:15 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [11 views]


Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler allegedly made a sex tape with co-defendant
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 11:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (9 comments) [162 views]


Law selectors, pages, etc.
Supreme Court rejects Jack Smith’s request for justices to quickly hear Trump immunity dispute
By Curt_Anderson
December 22, 2023 12:03 pm
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

(CNN)
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to fast-track arguments on whether Donald Trump has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – a move that will likely delay his trial.



Another example of why only a fool would bet that the Supreme Court would do the right thing.

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Supreme Court rejects Jack Smith’s request for justices to quickly hear Trump immunity dispute":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on December 22, 2023 12:13 pm

    They're fascists, pure and simple. Keehee.

    But, why would they have fast tracked the case. Smith won in the lower court...and appealed a decision that he'd won.

    Clearly, his goal is political. I can see no other argument. Who would have expected the Supreme Court to enable such a politically based prosecution? Not ol pb.

    But, a word of warning to po and you lot who expect the Colorado silliness to prevail at the Supreme Court.

    The image of a snowball in hell comes to mind. Eh? Baha baha ha.


  2. by HatetheSwamp on December 22, 2023 12:37 pm

    From MSNBC. Notice they think this is about politics...not justice!

    View Video


  3. by Curt_Anderson on December 22, 2023 12:43 pm
    Are you familiar with the axiom, “justice delayed is justice denied”?


  4. by HatetheSwamp on December 22, 2023 12:48 pm

    Proverbs 32:66, right?


  5. by HatetheSwamp on December 22, 2023 8:42 pm

    pb's Legal Goober #2 splains that the DC trial may not take place before the election:

    View Video


  6. by HatetheSwamp on December 22, 2023 8:53 pm

    And, pb's Legal Goober #3, Andy McCarthy chimes in.

    Apparently, the Supreme Court ain't gunna enable the lynching of Trump:

    View Video


  7. by HatetheSwamp on December 22, 2023 9:02 pm

    The MSNBC gang:

    View Video


  8. by HatetheSwamp on December 22, 2023 9:09 pm

    NewsNation. "A major win for Donald Trump:"

    View Video


  9. by Ponderer on December 23, 2023 6:08 am

    Curt, delaying justice is Trump's only defense.

    I'd love to hear the Supremes' excuses for not adjudicating this now as Smith requested. There's tons of precedent. They've jumped in and inserted themselves into cases recently that they weren't even asked to. There were several Covid cases a few years ago about states wanting to have strict regulations for public safety that the Supremes simply had to stop by curtailing all the appeals process and doing themselves. When they want to, they can move very fast. And the importance of this case absolutely warranted expedience. But I guess too many of them right now are too afraid of riling up Trump's minions to get involved in this yet.



  10. by oldedude on December 23, 2023 6:16 am
    I'd love to hear the Supremes' excuses for not adjudicating this now as Smith requested.
    Because they can. Smith knew this would be an issue, but waited until now to "demand" the change. 🙄


  11. by HatetheSwamp on December 23, 2023 7:30 am

    Curt, delaying justice is Trump's only defense.


    Watch those Legal Goober #2 videos that I linked.

    The issue is due process.


  12. by oldedude on December 23, 2023 3:23 pm
    I'm still looking for the law that says trumpster can't delay without the courts' permission... So far, no luck.


  13. by HatetheSwamp on December 26, 2023 4:55 am

    Jonathan Turley, i.e., pb's Legal Goober #2, made the point, that the process of working appeals deliberately from one court level is in place to protect the rights of citizens and to ensure that due process is carefully protected...

    ...and we know...from years of posting here, that progressives despise the Bill of Rights.

    It goes without saying that our lynch-mobbers want to deprive Trump of his most basic rights.


  14. by oldedude on December 26, 2023 5:22 am
    In their zeal for "equal justice under the law" they forget the fundamentals. This equates to a lynch mob. It reminds me of Monty Python's "she's a witch!" skit.
    View Video


  15. by oldedude on December 26, 2023 5:26 am
    Video link not working.🙄


  16. by HatetheSwamp on December 26, 2023 5:40 am

    Have you become familiar with the term, lawfare? I've heard it on Fox, baha, a few times lately.

    With po, Curt and isle, I think that there's no belief in Trump's actually guilt or confidence that convictions will withstand appeal. They're hoping that the polls are correct and that if Trump's convicted many independents and moderates won't vote for him. It's not justice. It's irrational TrumpHate.


  17. by Curt_Anderson on December 26, 2023 11:38 am
    You are wrong there. I am sure that Trump is criminally culpable on many times over. If he's convicted on anything, I don't believe he'd win on appeal. I don't think he believes it either. He thinks his best chance of escaping justice is to be re-elected and pardon himself.


  18. by Ponderer on December 26, 2023 1:43 pm

    Bingo again, Curt.


  19. by HatetheSwamp on December 26, 2023 2:00 pm

    Curt,

    As is often the case, I dunno if you are lying or joshin or if you're, simply, a foolish Good German.


  20. by Curt_Anderson on December 26, 2023 2:51 pm
    HtS,
    You realize, of course, that your “good German” attempt at an insult is pure projection. You are a cult member who has voted twice for the man who spouts Hitlerisms. And you buy into his aggrieved victimhood schpiel.

    I voted for Joe Biden, and I will vote for him again, but he does not inspire the same sort of fanatical following that Trump does.


  21. by HatetheSwamp on December 26, 2023 3:18 pm

    And you buy into his aggrieved victimhood schpiel.


    I do?


  22. by oldedude on December 26, 2023 3:20 pm
    And this comes from you agreeing with putting parents on the Terrorist watch list for having issues against the school districts. The "issues" include but aren't limited to unreported multiple sexual assaults of students by other students, refusing to update parents about their children's health and wellbeing in the school, refusing to provide a safe environment at the school, and exposing young children to pornographic material that are illegal to read at the school board meetings. You support the party in placing political rivals in "re-education camps" as enemies of the state.

    You will never question the dim leadership. at all. You always read the talking points and recite them verbatim and without question. You don't have a mind of your own.



  23. by Curt_Anderson on December 26, 2023 3:53 pm
    “ And this comes from you agreeing with putting parents on the Terrorist watch list for having issues against the school districts.” —-OD

    Nice story. But it never happened. See link. Merrick Garland never called those out of control parents terrorists much less put them on the terrorist watchlist. The DOJ did follow up on criminal threats of violence to educators and school board members. Garland also said that harassment and intimidation are not protected by the first amendment.
    factcheck.org


  24. by islander on December 26, 2023 4:28 pm

    "With po, Curt and isle, I think that there's no belief in Trump's actually guilt or confidence that convictions will withstand appeal"

    Your thinking is dead wrong.


  25. by HatetheSwamp on December 26, 2023 4:49 pm

    Sorry, isle. I try my d@ngdest not to think you're deranged.


  26. by oldedude on December 26, 2023 11:16 pm
    To curt---

    NSBA letter, Sept. 29, 2021: As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes. As such, NSBA requests a joint expedited review by the U.S. Departments of Justice, Education, and Homeland Security, along with the appropriate training, coordination, investigations, and enforcement mechanisms from the FBI, including any technical assistance necessary from, and state and local coordination with, its National Security Branch and Counterterrorism Division, as well as any other federal agency with relevant jurisdictional authority and oversight. Additionally, NSBA requests that such review examine appropriate enforceable actions against these crimes and acts of violence under the Gun-Free School Zones Act, the PATRIOT Act in regards to domestic terrorism, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights statute, the Conspiracy Against Rights statute, an Executive Order to enforce all applicable federal laws for the protection of students and public school district personnel, and any related measure.

    So there aren't "checks and balances" to this list. It's a free for all relating to this and are completely unreliable for this purpose. Although it does contain persons who should and do belong there. What you're doing is arguing "semantics" to something the DOJ has admitted to, but the MSM has tells Americans "isn't true."

    The numbers speak for themselves. When it first launched on Dec. 1, 2003, the consolidated watchlist — now known as the Terrorist Screening Dataset — included approximately 120,000 people. By 2017, the last publicly confirmed numbers, it included nearly 10 times as many: 1,160,000 individuals. Now, at the end of 2023, the Terrorist Screening Dataset contains the names of approximately 2 million people the government considers known or suspected terrorists, including thousands of Americans, according to a CBS Reports investigation.

    "It doesn't mean they're a terrorist," cautioned Russ Travers, a veteran of the U.S. intelligence community for four decades who helped create the watchlist. "It means there's something that has led a department or agency to say, 'This person needs a closer look.'"

    The interagency group that oversees the watchlist also administers a second list targeting primarily American gangs with international ties. That other watchlist, known as the Transnational Organized Crime Actor Detection Program, contains another 40,000 individuals, according to a recent audit obtained by CBS News.

    Being on a watchlist can have significant consequences on people's lives. In countless civil lawsuits over the past 20 years, people have described how they believe the watchlist caused them to be stopped from flying home after a vacation, to fail a background check to get jobs, or to have their phones and computers searched. Others said it triggered law enforcement to handcuff them at gunpoint, or that they were detained and interrogated by foreign intelligence services.

    Over the years, tens of thousands of innocent people have complained to the government about being incorrectly treated like terrorist suspects. According to the Department of Homeland Security, 98% of those who've reported complaints were subjected to "false positives," meaning that they were flagged because their names were similar to others in the database.

    justice.gov
    factcheck.org


  27. by oldedude on December 26, 2023 11:18 pm
    I would think that you, as a "libertarian," would be outraged at this. If you were actually a libertarian... You're more of an isolationist. big difference.


  28. by Curt_Anderson on December 27, 2023 11:54 am
    OD,
    Where did you get that idea? I never claimed to be a Libertarian. I agree with them on some issues, namely immigration, civil liberties and their position on legalizing marijuana. I don't agree with them on legalizing all drugs. I am also not an isolationist or against public schools.

    Other than hardcore socialists, communists and a few others, I suspect most people could find points of agreement with the Libertarians.
    lp.org


Go To Top

Comment on: "Supreme Court rejects Jack Smith’s request for justices to quickly hear Trump immunity dispute"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page