8 Supreme Court cases the justices have yet to rule on

well that is not the ruling from the court here or from Clinton. In Clinton they aren’t immune from civil cases for claims before taking office and here all the Court said is he has to complex with state criminal grand juries for investigations...but warned of witch hunt and gave a test. i don’t think this was a surprise...but the trump lawyers adopted the obama white house argument on absolute immunity

 

oh he’s the cause of the chinese virus???

 

It could, but I think Oklahoma is sort of a special case as that's the area that was specifically set up for the mass migrations, whereas many so-called reservations were mostly where the natives were already living... I get the feeling that makes some sort of difference, legally, but maybe not..

Of course Trump will inflame it... he's the Scab-Picker in Chief.... I predict a Lizzie Warren tweet soonest, once they talk him off of the ledge after his boys Brett and Neil pulled the chair out from under him....

This is what you get when you appoint a conservative justice originally from the Great Plains...

 

Values of properties are not static. They are variable. Which is why banks always require an assessment and hire assessors themselves.

 

Under Trump's failed leadership, America now has more cases, more cases per capita, more deaths, and more deaths per capita than the entirety of the EU.

And that is true despite them possessing nearly 200 million more people.

And it is happening because of dumb **** like trump holding large, in person rallies and him accusing people that wear masks of being politically correct and doing it to show their dislike of trump.

 

Do you think it is impossible to commit a crime on those forms or do you just believe that Trump did not commit the crime?

 

Constitutionally I think Gorsuch was right. There is no clarity set for the nations and jurisdiction. Its bound to create chaos tho.

 

They rejected Trump's argument that a sitting President is absolutely immune from civil and criminal investigation, even for acts committed from before they were in office or acts committed while in office.

 

Hopefully that changes the opinion of the OLC which shields presidents from investigations.

 

he didn’t make the civil claim that was clinton...his attorneys adopted obama’s argument. and it failed for state grand juries...which was expected. then they, like the circuit highlighted their fear of this being a witch hunt and threw it back.

great win for the president and american people to escape political witch hunts

 

yes we test more and had NY listened more lives had been saved. had we listened to biden and not banned travel maybe two million dead

 

Trump's team never made the argument that they were immune from investigation, just immune to a subpoena. It wasn't the best argument they could put forth either. As I've linked to the Fourth, the way this is ruled, essentially it's an expansion on the fourth amendment without a constitutional amendment.

To me, a subpoena should only be valid in an actual trial or hearing(the hearing part of this statement, is acknowledging Congress's power to call a hearing, though I contest that SCOTUS ruling too(and to be clear, it was a ruling before the Trump administration even took place.). To me, it grants Congress way too much power over the people as it theoretically could subpoena any citizen for any documents, under any flimsy reasoning under the "need to investigate and legislate" clause they gave themselves.

Because of these various political cases, the SCOTUS has become WAY more relevant than the framers had hoped for(though I hope these partial rulings will hopefully have Democrats freak out less about Kavanaugh and Gorsuch moving forward as impartial justices.)

My objection to some recent rulings(and past rulings that factored into present-day cases) has had nothing to do with Donald Trump and everything to do with what I see as intellectual and philosophical inconsistencies or objections to the ruling based on those philosophical disagreements.

If Vance finds things that implicate Trump in a crime, as they say: bag him and off he goes. This ruling however as an expansion of
qualifiers to the fourth amendment needed to be a constitutional amendment or at least a referendum that we could vote on.

 

I'm no legal expert. I don't know if he committed a crime or not. But I can tell when it looks like there's a fishing expedition going on. And this has a very fishy smell to it. I'd be arguing the same as I have been regardless if its Trump, Obama, Or God himself. More often than not people like to assume that just because someone is saying something that doesn't favor their argument then that person MUST be defending X person. All that I am doing is stating what I know. People are so quick to come to judgements based entirely on their likes and dislikes. I try to be more careful than that.

 

The OLC does not shield Presidents from investigations. It didn't even bar Mueller from telling Congress whether or not Trump broke a law. All that it does is say that a President cannot be prosecuted while they are President. All that Mueller had to do, and I'm sure he knew this, is to tell Congress, "Yes, Trump broke X law" and given them the facts. They then could have added that to their impeachment inquiry/articles. This same thing has happened before with previous Presidents.

 

I have watched trump defenders go from arguing, for weeks, that the 2 million dead prediction was an example of a chicken little exaggering the risk of the virus to now using the 2 million dead as a reason to praise Trump.

Meanwhile, the folks who actually pay attention to these models - like the one who authored that Imperial College Model - continue to point out that this virus could STILL kill 2 million Americans.

I glanced back over your posts in this thread and I saw where you immediately jumped to Trump's defense by saying that this virus would go away and because these pandemic fears "never amount to much" and using the 12,500 dead from the H1N1 or the fact that one of the ebola outbreaks lasted for three years as your benchmark for whether this virus is a severe threat. I hope you can see the folly in taking those types of positions.

 

His longtime lawyer testified under oath that crimes were committed on these specific documents. And we know from public records that there are inconsistencies in his documents (like claims of certain occupancy rates in one document and vastly different claims in another).

It is very difficult to get access to these types of documents against someone who can afford to pay for an extensive legal team. The burden of proving that these investigations are not fishing expeditions will be on the prosecutor, but there is definitely plenty of smoke already there.

 

I’m not sure that’s right.
If you go by total population to coronavirus deaths, I think the UK is number 1 and the US is about 4th or 5th worldwide, although many people assume that some countries are lying or under reporting deaths, such as Russia, China, India and North Korea. Nobody believes their numbers.
The US is number 1 in total deaths. Yay trump.

 

Did you not note that they threw it back to a court that has already ruled against Trump?

 

yes with instructions on how they were wrong and to review with their instructions. that’s what happens on appeal

 

yeah your post is a hoax

 

I am referencing the entirety of the EU. So that would include countries which have handled the virus very well, like Germany and Norway. The US passed the EU on a per capita (deaths) basis back in early May. They passed the EU in total deaths two days ago. I have been tracking the data for months and I use Worldofmeters data into an excel spreedsheet, but I definitely welcome anyone to come double check my count.

This is the per capita (deaths) chart. After yesterday, it is 415.104 for the US vs 261.963 for the EU.



This is the total deaths chart. After yesterday, it is 135822 for the US vs 134230 for the EU.

 

They didn't say they were wrong, if that was the case they would have overruled the decision. They said the ruling was incomplete and explained what more is required. They in fact said neither side made arguments on the real issues at hand to the Supreme court. It also lamented that in over 200 years this is the first time the congress and the president were unable to come to an accommodation and they were loathe to get involved in something that 44 other presidents managed to do on their own.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf

 

they did overrule and remand the case with instructions for the court

yeah so true we haven’t had such a political witch hunt by dems in 200 plus years

 

The Supreme court does not overrule per se, it can remand a case as we see here, it can rule a law unconstitutional which was not on the table here or it can rule a law was misapplied but constitutional, also not the case here. In this case the court has remanded the case to insure that issues not raised by either party during the Supreme Court hearings are addressed. The lower court very well make the same ruling after further consideration.

All this really does is gives Trump the chance that his returns are not made public prior to the election. They still could be but unlikely.

 

overrule...said they were wrong tomato tomatoe...either way the lower court was wrong to rule the way they did first against trump and the case was sent back for them to correct using the test the SCOTUS outlined