Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

Maybe, but that is a conclusion and I sure do not know enough about the case to draw a conclusion.   Frankly, no one knows enough at this stage in the proceedings to draw a conclusion.   Anything you read anywhere that purports to know what is going on in the Court's certiorari discussions is pure unadulterated speculation and is of no value whatsoever!

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/12/court-to-weigh-in-on-scope-of-law-used-in-jan-6-prosecutions/

The Scotus Blog is the money place for SC analysis.  Stay tuned.

The blog, indeed, is a nice summary. Thanks for that link.
In regards to the case, I find the gist of it to be stated as per the link:

"Fischer sought to have the charge at the center of his Supreme Court case dismissed, and U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols agreed. He reasoned that the law, which was enacted in the wake of the Enron collapse, was only intended to apply to evidence tampering that obstructs an official proceeding."

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and reinstated the charges against Fischer (as well as those against two other men). It ruled that “[u]nder the most natural reading of the statute,” the law “applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, other than the conduct that is already covered by” the evidence-tampering provision."

"In a dissenting opinion, Judge Gregory Katsas countered that the government’s interpretation of the law would render it “both improbably broad and unconstitutional in many of its applications.”

So, based upon the opinions of two Trump appointees, NIchols and Katsus, the case gets picked up by SCOTUS. Given the track record of the cons on SCOTUS, deciding virtually every case before them for the plaintiff and against the government specific to notion of just about anything the government does is too broad and therefore exceeds its authority, the majority opinion of the cons will prevail and the perps will likely skate. 
In the case before it, Fisher, an ex-cop like some others who were similarly charged and convicted, reportedly charged the capitol, blocked doors and exits while assaulting capitol police officers and, in doing so, obstructed the official business of congress in attempting to certify the vote for Biden. But wait, here comes Nichols and Katsus that "interpret" the law as only applying to evidence tampering!  Now really, is that what the statute actually says?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/12/12/russian-state-media-gop-mitch-mcconnell-ukraine-ebof-vpx.cnn
Geez...

Along similar lines of insanity, Comer actually went on Newsmax to complain about Steve Doocy on Faux who had the audacity to tell him the Republicans don't have the evidence on impeaching Biden so he's taking his ball and going home and won't go back on Faux!
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4357751-comer-fox-friends-doocy-hunter-biden-impeachment/

"A binder containing highly classified information related to Russian election interference went missing at the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, raising alarms among intelligence officials that some of the most closely guarded national security secrets from the US and its allies could be exposed, sources familiar with the matter told CNN."

"The binder contained raw intelligence the US and its NATO allies collected on Russians and Russian agents, including sources and methods that informed the US government’s assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help Trump win the 2016 election, sources tell CNN."

"The intelligence was so sensitive that lawmakers and congressional aides with top secret security clearances were able to review the material only at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where their work scrutinizing it was itself kept in a locked safe."

"Cassidy Hutchinson, one of Meadows’ top aides, testified to Congress and wrote in her memoir that she believes Meadows took home an unredacted version of the binder. She said it had been kept in Meadows’ safe and that she saw him leave with it from the White House."

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/politics/missing-russia-intelligence-trump-dg/

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

I think there is enough stink to coat both 'sides' of the issue.  

I follow Robert Reich, former Sec. of State on FB and he posted the first piece I have yet to see that dispassionately and fairly puts a moral framework on everything.

 

"Friends,
Last weekend, I met with a group of students to talk about what’s happening in Israel and Gaza. Some were Jewish, some were Palestinian, one was Israeli, some were from other nations in the Middle East.
The purpose of the meeting was to see what they could agree on, morally.
As you can imagine, emotions ran high.
I suggested that, at least for the purpose of our conversation, they not think of themselves as either “Pro-Palestinian” or “Pro-Israel” but instead look deeper into what basic moral principles were at stake.
After several hours, they agreed to seven moral principles.
I list them here — along with the process we went through — in hopes that they might be helpful to you in thinking about and discussing this ongoing tragedy.
1. What Hamas did on October 7 was morally despicable. (Some of the students wanted to explain why Hamas did it — about the accumulated grievances and gruesome history suffered by many Palestinians, especially those in Gaza — but they finally came around to distinguishing between an explanation and a justification. In the end, even those who understood why Hamas did what it did on October 7 agreed that the killings and kidnappings of innocent civilians were not morally justifiable.)
2. Hamas’s avowed aim to murder all Jews is morally despicable. (Again, we spent time distinguishing between an explanation and a justification.)
3. What the Israeli government has done since then in Gaza is also morally despicable. Some students initially wanted to defend Israel by saying that after October 7, Israelis could not feel safe as long as Hamas existed, and therefore Hamas had to be rooted out. This precipitated a discussion about how Hamas could be rooted out without the killing of innocent civilians, including large numbers of children. Which got us to our next principle.
4. The murder or kidnapping of innocent civilians is morally wrong. This was not a difficult principle for them to agree on, although several argued that warfare always involved the killing of innocent civilians, while others charged that Hamas was intentionally using innocent civilians as shields.
5. Israel’s policies toward Palestinians have been segregation and discrimination, based on ethnicity and religion, which are morally wrong. This was a hard principle for many of the students to accept, because they had different understandings of history. So the discussion was difficult. But all of them finally came around. (Most, although not all, decided that a so-called “two-state solution” was necessary, but we didn’t get into the specifics or how it could be achieved, because I wanted to keep them on the track of seeking moral clarity and agreement.)
6. It is morally wrong to urge genocide against any group — whether they constitute a religion, ethnicity, race, or nation. No disagreement on this. Some participants were initially unsure of whether universities should permit such advocacy on campus (the presidents of Penn, M.I.T., and Harvard temporized when asked this at a congressional hearing last week), but all finally agreed that it should not be permitted.
7. All of us have a moral obligation to do everything within our power to prevent and stop all forms of genocide, all killing of innocent civilians, and the promotion of hate. All agreed on this.


Dave

I would hope that any sane and rational person would agree with the moral equivalents that are being enunciated in the above discourse.
Of course,  one could apply the same principles to past wars. Was it, for example, "moral" to drop the A bomb on two cities full of civilians in WW2? But wait, we were at war and we were attacked and that precipitated our entrance into the war, right? Was it morally correct to fire bomb the city of Dresden in WW2? But wait, Hitler was killing more civilians in Britain with his V-Bombs than soldiers in the field. Did you think the British population shared concerns about moral equivalency at the time?
38 million civilians died in WW2 along with 15 million military personnel. One could certainly consider the moral factors in those deaths, right?
Do you think you don't lose people and land in a war? I think Maher covered that one pretty well in covering the Muslim army invasion of multiple countries in his monologue.  
I'll add to that the fact that most Palestinians support the October 7th rampage into Israel as well as Hamas:
"JERUSALEM, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Almost three in four Palestinians believe the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel was correct, and the ensuing Gaza war has lifted support for the Islamist group both there and in the West Bank, a survey from a respected Palestinian polling institute found."
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/#:~:text=JERUSALEM%2C%20Dec%2013%20(Reuters),respected%20Palestinian%20polling%20institute%20found.
I don't see them being too concerned about moral factors, do you?...

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-778279
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP-CRXROorw

“President Trump incited and encouraged the use of violence and lawless action to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power,” the justices wrote in the 134-page majority opinion.
"Trump was constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024 because the 14th Amendment’s ban on insurrectionists holding public office covers his conduct on January 6."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/20/politics/trump-supreme-court-2024-election/index.html
Yup, he's the victim...

"Former federal judge Michael Luttig argued Wednesday that the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling disqualifying former President Trump from the state’s ballot is not “anti-democratic,” but rather the conduct that prompted the disqualification was anti-democratic."

“The Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic,” Luttig added during an appearance on CNN’s “This Morning.”

"Luttig, a conservative legal thinker appointed to the federal bench by President George H. W. Bush, has been a leading proponent of using the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from returning to office. He has also called the former president a “clear and present danger to US democracy” during testimony before the House Jan. 6 committee last year."

"...it is possible that the Supreme Court would decline to take this case, because this case only disqualifies the former president from a state primary. It would be a legitimate interpretation of the Constitution that the states have the prerogative under the federal Constitution to conduct their primaries as they see fit without federal interference by the United States Constitution or Supreme Court.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4369535-former-federal-judge-luttig-colorado-trump-disqualification/

Originally Posted by James Brown

Rod, I find it amazing that you attribute political bias to the US Supreme Court, but you give the Colorado Supreme Court a pass.   Are you really so biased yourself that you can not see the hypocrisy in your position?  Jim

As far as I know, the Colorado SCOTUS has integrity and ethical standards while SCOTUS does not. 
The latest, for example, on Clarence complaining about his salary until wealthy conservative donors kicked in the bucks for everything from tires (probably Michelins) to auto batteries (probably diehards) and likely free rotations and roadside service, too.  Not to mention all of the lavish vacation "gifts" and his appearance at a conservative think tank that included discussions of elections:

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/thomas-told-lawmaker-in-2000-that-one-or-more-justices-might-resign-over-low-pay-a-stream-of-gifts-followed-report-says

As far as Trump not being charged/convicted with an insurrection: this, as per legal experts, is irrelevant because this is not a criminal trial and he has been deemed as inciting an insurrection by a colorado judge in the civil proceedings of which this is all about.

That, and the fact that Thomas and the rest of the cons on the court proclaim themselves to be originalists and strict adherents of the constitution should equate, again according to legal experts, as a slam dunk in favor or upholding the decision to remove Trump from the ballot. 

But, IMO, the latter applies in a court with ethical standards and integrity so I expect the adverse ruling from the hacks in black...

Originally Posted by James Brown

You could not be more wrong about the SCOTUS.

Well, I guess I'm in good company:

"The lack of formal ethics rules for the justices - on recusals and beyond - fosters lingering questions about their fairness and impartiality, according to some legal experts."

"I don't think there's any principled reason why the justices of the Supreme Court should not be held to the same types of regulations as other federal judges," University of Chicago Law School Professor Geoffrey Stone told a recent panel discussion in Chicago."

"The lack of an ethics code, Fogel added, "will continue to fuel doubts, fairly or unfairly, about the court's integrity."


https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-prepares-new-term-under-ethics-cloud-2023-09-27/