Biden will announce Supreme Court reform plans next week

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

Trump’s attorneys state you must be found guilty in an impeachment before you can be charged with a crime.

More utter nonsense LoL
You would post a source if one existed, but it doesn’t because it’s incorrect.

Biden is fair game January 2025.
That’s a fact.
I wonder who the AG will be then.

a reply to: Vermilion

You would post a source if one existed, but it doesn’t because it’s incorrect.

Read it and weep!

Another essential argument he made was that presidents can only be prosecuted if they have already been impeached and convicted by the U.S. Senate, even in the most extreme of circumstances.

www.pbs.org...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

A president would be impeached if he is in office. That is the legal proceeding for an elected official. Then, if needed, there could be another trial. The argument is when it is an official act, and when is it not.

Read it and understand.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sorry, thanks for helping with the link. I was busy and just now saw the reply.

I thought as it was discussed here, widely reported and shown live on TV, the arguments made were common knowledge.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

You would post a source if one existed, but it doesn’t because it’s incorrect.

Read it and weep!

Another essential argument he made was that presidents can only be prosecuted if they have already been impeached and convicted by the U.S. Senate, even in the most extreme of circumstances.

www.pbs.org...

Ah yes, my bad, that was indeed one of many of their arguments 👍

The problem for Biden is that his crimes started before he was even the president, so trumps lawyers arguments are totally irrelevant.
Biden’s crimes when he was a civilian are not protected anymore once he leaves office.
He’ll be a civilian again come January.
Cross your fingers the new AG is full of grace.

a reply to: Vermilion

And they will take him to court over the car payment and check clearly marked loan to his brother. Good luck with that.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

And they will take him to court over the car payment and check clearly marked loan to his brother. Good luck with that.

No telling what they’ll do.
Depends on who the AG is.
Trump could pick a real ballbuster.
State AG’s could also jump in.
Bidens aren’t even safe from the law in Delaware anymore LoL.
Biden broke over 200 years of precedent going after his predecessor in many disturbing ways.
That’s a hard pill to swallow for some and it cannot be undone.
There’s people in prison because of it.
Not cool.
The supremes see it for what it is.
If it gets to them I’m sure they’ll make the correct decision.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

Trump’s attorneys state you must be found guilty in an impeachment before you can be charged with a crime.

This kind of baffles me. If a president did something wrong enough to be charged as a crime, a high crime or misdemeanor, then impeachment would be the logical step. We already know a president can be impeached after he has left office. So I really don't grasp the animosity for this ruling. Any president, be it democrat or republican, can do his job and not worry about being arrested on a partisan basis. Before he's president while running, all bets are off, based on the current rules, that will likely be exploited from this point forward. It's all about who controls the DOJ. Sounds petty and divicive, but then, we didn't make the rules, ya'll did.

So knowing impeachment is the solution, why is it an issue? You just want more lawfare?

Constitution amendments require a 2/3 state majority to pass.




Not going to happen.

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: Xtrozero

What about all those trips Fani and her lover took, how much do those add up to? Wasn't it at taxpayer's expense?

Is that (D)ifferent?

Different, as in she hired him and then paid him 600k a year so he could take her on trips etc...lol All on our dime...

Will Biden’s reforms to the Supreme Court include swift justice for those who are leaking secret negotiations inorder to undermine the court?


Supreme Court Rocked by New Leak


There are nine of these guys and their staff; They can't figure out who is leaking... or do they not want too?

a reply to: matafuchs

Who Else Besides Mike Johnson is Dead on Arrival Joe ? Every time Joe Opens his Effin' Mouth these Days he is Threatening Someone . Remember Needing F16's to Fight the Feds ? Or his Quote " Donald Trump Will Never be President Again " ? Well.....

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

How is that not being covered in the news.

Donald Trump says there will be a blood bath in the auto industry and it was covered for two weeks.

Biden says the Speaker Of The House is dead for not supporting him and nothing.

Term limits are going to have to be a constitutional amendment, that’s not happening.
Congress can’t legislate that.
More late game rhetoric from the divider in chief.
January can’t come quick enough.
It’s very dangerous when one branch starts going after another branch.
A independent judiciary is a hallmark of America.
Without that we’re a banana republic.

So let's see...

April 2023: ProPublica reports Thomas took luxury trips and did real estate deals with Harlan Crow that he failed to disclose.

June 2023: Thomas amends his financial disclosure forms, claiming he didn't understand the instructions.

November 2023: New SCOTUS ethics codes clarify the rules for Thomas (and all the justices)

June 2024: Thomas gets caught AGAIN, and amends his disclosure forms with trips to Bali and California with Harlan Crow.

Today: Thomas gets caught AGAIN with trips to New Zealand and Hawaii with Harlan Crow.

But, yeah OK, no changes are needed to SCOTUS. And consider the fact that one Judge claimed he couldn't understand the instructions, but is making rulings interpreting the constitution.

Forbes

originally posted by: frogs453
So let's see...

April 2023: ProPublica reports Thomas took luxury trips and did real estate deals with Harlan Crow that he failed to disclose.

June 2023: Thomas amends his financial disclosure forms, claiming he didn't understand the instructions.

November 2023: New SCOTUS ethics codes clarify the rules for Thomas (and all the justices)

June 2024: Thomas gets caught AGAIN, and amends his disclosure forms with trips to Bali and California with Harlan Crow.

Today: Thomas gets caught AGAIN with trips to New Zealand and Hawaii with Harlan Crow.

But, yeah OK, no changes are needed to SCOTUS. And consider the fact that one Judge claimed he couldn't understand the instructions, but is making rulings interpreting the constitution.

Forbes

It's a shame there isn't some mechanism to remove a judge from SCOTUS. I guess this is how it will be until Thomas dies. Too bad for your side.

a reply to: network dude

I simply said changes are needed, by whatever process. As we were discussing these examples in the thread I felt it was an appropriate place to post the new info.

If you feel changes are not needed, cool, that's your opinion. You feel it's a "sides" thing. I don't. It's not my fault this came about because of a conservative judge still hiding things. I have the same opinion whatever judge it is. No judge should be at 20M in gifts from someone whose own interests are brought before the court and no judge should just be claiming to not understand, fixing it 3 or 4 times and still trying to not report the gifts.

a reply to: frogs453

What changes?

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

There should certainly be limits on gifts and any judge should recuse themselves from cases representing the gift givers direct interests. For all judges. Doesn't seem unreasonable.