Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

... the GOP routinely does that by ensuring only conservative judges can even be considered as in the case of McConnell not even allowing a democratic president the chance to have a nominee to be considered by congress. Were you on your high horse when that happened?...

Hardball politics is of course different than court packing. 

I thought McConnell's move was hard-ball politics, but no worse than when the D's borked Justice Bork to keep him off the Court.  Also no worse than the D's personal attacks against Thomas and Kavanaugh with ancient accusations which were brought at the last minute and which could not be proved or even corroborated, whether true or not.

Court packing would cause a never ending escalation.  If Harris were to add three justices to acquire a liberal majority, it is obvious the next R president would add five more and so on.  You hate the conservative tilt of the Court now, but it indeed favored extremely liberal jurisprudence  from the 50s until the 70s and was fairly liberal/moderate from the 70s to a few years ago.   

If the Ds win the election, Sotomayor should retire and be replaced by a liberal.  Thomas and Alito will almost certainly retire or die in the next 8 years.  ACB and Roberts are fairly moderate consensus builders.   Harris only needs to win the election, govern prudently, and she will bequeath the grateful nation a Supreme Court with two conservatives, two moderates and five liberals when she steps down in eight and half years.   You heard it here first.  I will be unhappy about it, but you will never hear 70 year old me calling for a court packing scheme in '32

Jim's predicted Supreme Court in 2032:

Conservatives:  Gorsuch, Kavanaugh

Right-Moderates:  Coney Barrett, Roberts (getting kinda old by then)

Liberals (or Left-Moderates):  Kagan, Brown-Jackson, Sotomayor's replacement, Alito's replacement (probable), Thomas's replacement (guaranteed in the next 8 years).

This all assumes Harris does not pull a "Biden" and face plant next Tuesday.  I do not expect her to.   I personally think she creates and widens a big lead with the debate next Tuesday, but the stakes are enormous.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

You do righteous indignation just as well or better than Rich or MAGA. Actually, you do it better as it's more polished and befitting of your profession.

I guess I can live with that.    

Former profession though.   I retired in January and have been extremely busy with cool things that are not practicing law!   I am just waiting for the mood to strike before I get out my night-time astrophotography gear and reengage with that hobby too.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I could not disagree more, and he is patient zero in the Trump 2nd impeachment debacle, which most in the GOP wanted to vote for but didn't have the guts to.

McConnell "We have courts and a justice system. Donald Trump will not escape punishment for what he is responsible for on Jan 6th"

SCOTUS "Not so much, Mitch..."

McConnell will go down as the anti Mike Pence should things go badly for us.

What specifically are you talking about?  Is it the recent immunity decision?  That decision is neither revolutionary nor pro-Trump.  It was entirely predictable and only necessary because Smith foolishly chose to include some official acts in his indictment.   Trust me, you do not want any president, whether it is the odious Trump, or the next 100 people to hold the office criminally prosecuted for official acts after they leave office.

FWIW, I am only saying that McConnell's treatment of the Garland nomination was hardball politics, and defensible (according to Joe Biden's past statements for example).   I am not saying that McConnell's other actions are good, bad, or indifferent.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Impeachment is the prescribed remedy for a criminal President, but it doesn't work if congress won't put the country ahead of their own power or safety.

Ok, I agree with that.  Not sure why you brought the Supreme Court into the mix.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

just venting. Sorry, man.

No worries, especially in view the original context of your thread i.e. "The Rs have left us and are no longer recognizable".  I have gotten way out in left field with my comments.  It is fun though.  At least I didn't play the "righteous indignation" card against you!  

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

A lefty Freudian slip?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Nice to read this: "My dad believes that there’s never been an individual in our country who is as grave of threat to our democracy as Donald Trump is,” Liz Cheney said at the Texas Tribune Festival."

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/06/dick-cheney-vote-kamala-harris-liz-cheney.html

Wow.  I started posting on this forum 21 years ago Rod, you were already a regular.  To think I would live to see you agree with Dick Cheney on a matter of national importance!  I would have never guessed.

I must say Cheney's opinion is far more compelling to me than the commonly expressed view on the left that Trump is a threat.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It's probably more correct to say that Obama and Clinton helped create a groundswell of resentment, but that resentment was already there long before they came along. Neither did Trump create it, but he sure nurtured it, tapped into it, and grew it into the nativist and populist political movement we collectively refer to as MAGA. My point is that the left bears some responsibility, but IMHO, you have to lay most of the blame for the movement at the feet of Trump. Let's be plain: Trump is the lying, dishonest, and immoral actor here, not Obama or Clinton.

I substantially agree, although as you know, I think Clinton is also a lying, dishonest, and immoral actor.  Maybe not as lying, dishonest, and immoral as Trump, but certainly a more sophisticated and crafty lying, dishonest, and immoral actor.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

The fact that you can have someone as lying, dishonest and immoral as Trump occupying the White House is reason enough that the immunity decision from the cons on SCOTUS can't stand...

I'll try not to get too sanctimonious, but you are exasperating me!  

Clearly you would interpret the Constitution in a special fashion just because Trump was President.  What else can, "The fact that you can have someone as lying, dishonest and immoral as Trump occupying the White House is reason enough that the immunity decision from the cons on SCOTUS can't stand" mean if not that you want a new and special rule just to get Trump?  

That would be a horrible precedent!   Do you want Biden stripped of immunity for official acts just because of Trump?  Do you want Harris stripped of immunity for official acts just because of Trump?

How about Congress?  They too have civil and criminal immunity for their official acts.  Same with the judiciary, they all have civil and criminal immunity for official acts.

Please think this through Rod.  First, there is no criminal immunity for acts by the president outside the scope of his or her official duties.  If Smith can prove that Trump incited insurrection, well, inciting insurrection is hardly within the scope of the President's official duties.  Immunity does not apply.   

On the other hand, there is criminal immunity for acts that are clearly within the scope of the president's official duties.  Think about what it would mean if there were no criminal immunity for official acts!!  If you don't like the way President X, Y, or Z discharges his or her legitimate official duties, you vote them out, you do not have their successor prosecute them!  Not in the United States anyway.

I bet you can not name one official act that warrants criminal prosecution, by Trump or any other president.      

I can name plenty of official acts that warrant immunity.  How about Biden approving arms sales to Israel.  Some, not me or you of course, but plenty of people think that those arms sales are fostering and actively promoting genocide.  Do you want some future President prosecuting Biden for genocide because he chose to sell arms to Israel?  

In my view, presidential immunity for official acts is absolutely mandatory.  If/when the president commits a crime while acting outside of his or her constitutional authority, then prosecute away if the facts support it.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

That's pretty much the response I anticipated but, up until now, of course, there hasn't been a need to have such a decision from SCOTUS. 
That we've reached that point is solely due to Trump and his inane actions. IMO, however, existing law already covered the presidents for the kind of immunity questions that arise directly from their actions as a president with the only viable exception being Nixon who would have otherwise skated on his actions and subsequent resignation under the current SCOTUS ruling. 

I can't think of a DOJ who'd considered prosecuting a president for the kinds of actions you've described which are, of course, the kinds of decisions  a president makes during their years in office and that obviates the need for SCOTUS to step in and pontificate their dubious decree that Trump is currently utilizing to shield himself from just about every legit case against him and may very well prevail given the extremists on this court...

If Trump ever successfully asserts immunity where you think he should not have been immune, let's talk.