Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I'm trying to see the bright side and hope that a) they decide the case quickly, b) the case is a slam dunk, no one is above the law, and his claim to immunity has already been rejected twice by lower courts, and c) after this immunity case is decided, and when Trump is found guilty by Jack Smith, he can't play the I didn't get due process card (even though he will try anyway).

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi James, I know you did not mean what you typed above, but this is a telling typo.   No doubt Jack Smith would convict Trump singlehandedly if he could.   He would mete out punishment with his bare hands if he could.   Smith is a rabid attack dog, and that is why he gets overturned more often that other federal prosecutors.

I despair of convincing anyone, but the reality is that these cases against Trump present novel issues of law.   It takes the various layers of courts of appeal time to be briefed and to deliberate.   In this case, Rod is wrong, justice delayed is not justice denied.   He only thinks that because he has already decided, before the trial, that Trump is guilty and he is counting on a conviction to save Biden's chances.

The reality is that justice rushed is justice denied.  Every defendant, from Trump to the most heinous terrorist and mass murderer has the right to challenge any novel and legally unsettled aspect of the case against them.  To deny Trump his pre-trial arguments and appeals just because there is an election in November is wrong, corrupt, anti-American, anti-liberty and I am proud that the courts are having no part of it.   I am dismayed that you guys, some of you anyway, see this fundamental application of due process as reflecting the fix being in.  That's shameful.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

I agree with this.   And the answer to your rhetorical question is "yes."  Maybe I am mis-reading Rod, but he and a lot of like-minded people seem to be counting on convictions before the election and anything else will be deemed a miscarriage of justice, at best.  Look at the thread title.  Watch MSNBC tonight and see what the talking heads on the left have to say.   Far too many want to rush justice because Trump is the defendant.

I think your take is the correct one.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Loony leftist/communist in Cal stated:   "Must just be a coincidence..."

OH, so now even ALL the liberal justices on the US Supreme court are in cahoots are they?

That's your assertion now?   

Its almost hard to believe that you would even MAKE that insinuation.

Just shows how utterly unhinged and psychotically deep your Trump Derangement Syndrome goes.

Yeah, that's what happened, the leftist justices on the US Supreme court led by Ketanji Brown Jackson are in the tank for Donald Trump.

You really do need to sit down with the best shrink in the nation to see what is wrong, but then again, since you're a dyed in the wool communist, I guess being a ward/puppet of the communist Democrat party might explain things!   


LOL  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

So then red diaper boy, then tell us all WHEN did Ketanji Brown Jackson jump IN the Donald Trump camp?

When did Sonia Sotomayor jump IN the Donald Trump camp?

When did Elena Kagan jump IN the Donald Trump camp?

I guess you're just too stupid to understand just what a moronic assertion you are making?

Does that explain it?

Give us a DATE that ALL the leftist judges on the US Supreme Court decided to make a political stand and become schills FOR Donald Trump?  

I could say it a million times, you're the dumbest human being on AMart, that is a fact!    LOL 

Originally Posted by James Brown

Is this just political smack talk Jim?  Or do you actually believe that the conservative justices legal philosophies are the result of allegiance to Trump rather than the alternative correct answer as to their motivations?   The correct answer by the way is that the conservative legal philosophies of the conservative justices are the result of a lifetime of conservative legal jurisprudence and study.  Same as the liberal judicial philosophies of liberal justices.   

Rod and Rich will never see justices who disagree with them as anything other than political hacks.   Rational beings should know better.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

That part seems a little over the top. Didn't they merely decide that States can't disqualify candidates from federal office? It's now up to Congress to implement something that spells out the process for disqualification under the 14th Amendment. States can still remove candidates for state office.

Just to be clear, I agree with the CO court conclusion that Trump planned, encouraged, and participated in an insurrection on 1/6 to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and hopefully create enough confusion and chaos to allow him to remain in power for at least long enough to try and continue pursuing holding on to power. Regardless, that was not the question before the SC. The question was whether States have the right to disqualify him from their ballots, and the answer is a resounding no. I wouldn't blame the SC; instead, blame the vagueness of the 14th Amendment and the lack of jurisprudence behind it for not giving it genuine effect and enforceability.