DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,084
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 2, 2024 20:37:01 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,084
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 3, 2024 10:20:01 GMT -5
|
|
hoyajinx
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,585
|
Post by hoyajinx on Jul 3, 2024 10:46:04 GMT -5
I’d argue that the Supreme Court has now created an unresolvable separation of powers problem. It is at the sole discretion of the executive branch as to whom should be investigated and prosecuted absent a law or constitutional provision to the contrary (and no matter what fabricated farcical provision the court created out of whole cloth, there is no constitutional provision with 5 of 6 justices previously acknowledging that no such provision exists). The Supreme Court has effectively usurped that power, trampling the separation of powers. Ironically, Republican “originalists” have absolutely no regard for the constitution. Again, they are just corrupt political hacks. PACK THE EditedING COURT!
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,180
|
Post by SSHoya on Jul 3, 2024 11:38:31 GMT -5
At his confirmation hearing in 2005, now–Chief Justice John Roberts said: “I believe that no one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution, and statutes.”
Oh, never mind.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,084
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 3, 2024 11:52:48 GMT -5
At his confirmation hearing in 2005, now–Chief Justice John Roberts said: “I believe that no one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution, and statutes.” Oh, never mind. Alito and Kavanaugh both said the same thing at theirs - a trifecta of perjurists. hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/1063108/thread
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Jul 3, 2024 12:34:06 GMT -5
I’d argue that the Supreme Court has now created an unresolvable separation of powers problem. It is at the sole discretion of the executive branch as to whom should be investigated and prosecuted absent a law or constitutional provision to the contrary (and no matter what fabricated farcical provision the court created out of whole cloth, there is no constitutional provision with 5 of 6 justices previously acknowledging that no such provision exists). The Supreme Court has effectively usurped that power, trampling the separation of powers. Ironically, Republican “originalists” have absolutely no regard for the constitution. Again, they are just corrupt political hacks. PACK THE EditedING COURT! Remember the words of Kristen Sinema that "power changes hands" and its corollary to be careful what you campaign for. Do you really want to see an expansion to a 12- or 13-member court if it is January 21, 2025 and the results of this Fall's election are where they stand now in all the polling?
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,084
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 4, 2024 6:19:43 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,084
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 4, 2024 15:47:31 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,084
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 6, 2024 6:52:02 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,084
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 7, 2024 6:30:05 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,180
|
Post by SSHoya on Jul 9, 2024 11:06:14 GMT -5
A fish rots from the head down. A federal district court judge from Demented Donnie gets the boot. I see him as running for Senator from Alaska as he meets all the MAGA GOP qualifications. Trump-appointed judge in Alaska resigns over sexual misconduct A federal judge in Alaska resigned from his lifetime appointment after an internal investigation concluded he created a hostile work environment for his law clerks and engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with one of them after her clerkship ended, according to a judicial conduct report released Monday. The report details two separate sexual encounters in October 2022 between U.S. District Judge Joshua M. Kindred and the former law clerk shortly after she began working as a federal prosecutor. It says they exchanged nearly 300 pages of text messages over an 11-month period. The report accuses Kindred, who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in 2019 by President Donald Trump, of discussing his divorce, dating life, sex life and romantic preferences as well as his law clerks’ boyfriends and dating lives, among other topics. www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/08/alaska-judge-joshua-kindred-resign-misconduct/You'll need a shower after you read through all this perv's sexual misconduct. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ce9/2024/22-90121%20News%20Release%20&%20Order%20and%20Certification.pdf
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,084
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 9, 2024 12:14:54 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,084
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 10, 2024 5:48:06 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,180
|
Post by SSHoya on Jul 10, 2024 6:30:30 GMT -5
Unfortunately, this corrupt SCOTUS has made it increasingly difficult to charge and convict any public officials with bribery and related corruption starting with McDonnell v. US (redefining "official acts" narrowly) and most recently in Snyder v. US (drawing a distinction between "bribes" and "gratuities"). No way DOJ would prosecute a false statement case against Thomas absent other top charges. See e.g., Jared Kushner's false statements and omissions on his SF-86 security questionnaire.
Thomas was merely receiving "gratuities" not "bribes"!
McDonnell v. US Holding: The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, makes it a crime for a public official to “receive or accept anything of value” in exchange for being “influenced in the performance of any official act.” An "official act" is a decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy"; that question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is "pending" or "may by law be brought" before a public official. To qualify as an "official act," the public official must make a decision to take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event -- without more -- does not fit that definition of "official act." Because jury instructions in the case of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell were erroneous, and those errors are not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, McDonnell's convictions are vacated.
Snyder v. US Holding: Federal law proscribes bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on June 26, 2024. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.
|
|
Massholya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,014
|
Post by Massholya on Jul 10, 2024 7:37:21 GMT -5
Unfortunately, this corrupt SCOTUS has made it increasingly difficult to charge and convict any public officials with bribery and related corruption starting with McDonnell v. US (redefining "official acts" narrowly) and most recently in Snyder v. US (drawing a distinction between "bribes" and gratuities"). No way DOJ would prosecute a false statement case against Thomas absent other top charges. See e.g., Jared Kushner's false statements and omissions on his SF-86 security questionnaire. Thomas was merely receiving "gratuities" not "bribes"! McDonnell v. US Holding: The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, makes it a crime for a public official to “receive or accept anything of value” in exchange for being “influenced in the performance of any official act.” An "official act" is a decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy"; that question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is "pending" or "may by law be brought" before a public official. To qualify as an "official act," the public official must make a decision to take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event -- without more -- does not fit that definition of "official act." Because jury instructions in the case of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell were erroneous, and those errors are not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, McDonnell's convictions are vacated. Snyder v. US Holding: Federal law proscribes bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts. Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on June 26, 2024. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. The deep state republican machine is playing 3rd level chess. They are always 2 steps ahead in plotting their corruption. The Supreme Court knew exactly what it was doing and who they were protecting when they made these most recent rulings. They have essentially made corruption legal and opened the doors for their ultra rich base to take a complete grasp on policy and law. We are rapidly becoming an oligarchy. Truly sad times for democracy and freedom.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,084
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 10, 2024 18:21:00 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,180
|
Post by SSHoya on Jul 13, 2024 5:45:47 GMT -5
Roberts, not irrelevant but one of the worst Chiefs in SCOTUS history as an enabler of racism, fascism and corruption. Was this the term that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. gave up on his cherished project of institutionalism and instead adopted an if-you-can’t-beat-them-join-them posture with his fellow conservatives? It sure looks that way. Roberts began his tenure in 2005 with a vision of leading a court in which unanimous rulings, achieved through compromise and moderation, would supplant ideological division and undergird the stability of the law. The court would be understood as a body that transcended the partisan screeching endemic to other branches. Justices would suppress their inclinations to pen individual concurrences and dissents for the greater good of speaking for the court as an institution. This was always a lofty goal, made paradoxically more difficult by the amassing of a six-justice conservative supermajority. Roberts is a staunch conservative yet, at times, is willing to put ideology aside in the service of what he viewed as the greater good. The primary example of this was his 2012 vote, joining with the liberal justices, to save the Affordable Care Act. But with the arrival of three new conservatives, Roberts found himself in an unexpected position: potential irrelevance. A chief justice has less authority than the title implies; his power lies mostly in the ability to assign opinion authorship when he is in the majority. Where Roberts might have crafted a narrower ruling, he swung for the fences. Where he could have sought to assemble a cross-ideological coalition, perhaps luring independent-minded Justice Amy Coney Barrett to join with the liberals, he signed up with the most full-throated conservatives. Where he could have avoided overturning precedent, either explicitly or without acknowledgment, he went for it. Is that the point, though? The question must be asked: What profits a chief to be in the majority if he presides over an institution in decline and disrepair? www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/12/chief-justice-roberts-conservatives/
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,084
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 25, 2024 19:24:12 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,084
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 25, 2024 23:12:36 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,084
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 30, 2024 6:23:16 GMT -5
|
|