As I delve into the latest news surrounding Trump’s missed Supreme Court deadline to fight civil immunity from Jan. 6 lawsuits, I can’t help but feel a mix of frustration and disbelief at the circus that seems to constantly surround the former president. It’s apparent that Trump and his legal team are floundering, missing crucial deadlines and making critical mistakes that have serious legal consequences.
The fact that he failed to file a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court by the agreed-upon deadline speaks volumes about his current predicament. It seems like Trump’s legal strategy is falling apart at the seams, and he may be running out of tricks up his sleeve.… Continue reading
I have been following the recent news about John Oliver offering to pay Clarence Thomas $1 million a year if he resigns from the Supreme Court, and I must say, the reactions and conversations surrounding this topic have been nothing short of fascinating. The idea of the general public pooling their funds to essentially bribe a Supreme Court Justice to step down is both audacious and thought-provoking.
Many have expressed disbelief at the notion that a mere $1 million a year would be enough to entice Clarence Thomas to resign from his position on the bench. After all, he already enjoys a lucrative lifetime appointment, complete with all the perks and privileges that come with it.… Continue reading
As someone who values the principle of the separation of church and state, I am deeply troubled by the recent ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court that cited the Bible in classifying fertilized eggs as children. This decision not only goes against the fundamental idea of keeping religion out of the legal system but also raises significant concerns about the erosion of reproductive rights and personal freedoms.
I find it alarming that a judicial body would refer to religious texts to justify a legal ruling, especially in a country that prides itself on the Constitution’s promise of freedom of religion. Are we now living in a theocratic dictatorship where religious beliefs dictate our laws?… Continue reading
interpretation? Yeah, that sounds like Hawaii rightly rejecting the Supreme Court’s gun nonsense.
It’s no surprise that Hawaii’s Supreme Court has had enough of the Supreme Court’s games. The highest court in the land has a serious legitimacy problem. It’s become a partisan circus, where justices twist themselves into positions to push their own agendas.
The idea of “originalism” sounds nice in theory, but when it comes to the real world, it falls apart. How can the Supreme Court argue whether someone attempting to start an insurrection is protected by the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist clause? It’s clear as day that oath breakers cannot hold office again, unless Congress says otherwise.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court’s reluctance to disqualify Donald Trump from running for president has sparked controversy and disappointment among many Americans. It raises questions about the court’s commitment to upholding the Constitution and fulfilling its duty to make difficult decisions.
One of the main arguments made by those in favor of disqualifying Trump is that his actions on January 6th, when he incited a mob to attack the Capitol, constitute treason under the Constitution. Treason, as defined in the Constitution, includes “levying war” against the United States, which many argue Trump did by inciting the insurrection. However, the Supreme Court seems hesitant to interpret the Constitution in this way and hold Trump accountable for his actions.… Continue reading
As I sat glued to the live oral arguments of the Supreme Court, I couldn’t help but feel a wave of nausea wash over me. The way these politicians manipulated the law, twisting and contorting it to suit their own agendas, was truly sickening. Whatever happened to the ideal of leaving things up to the states? Colorado Republicans made a decision that they simply didn’t want Trump on the ballot, and now they are trying to justify their actions under the guise of upholding states’ rights.
It’s ironic how these same politicians who claim to defend the right of states to choose how to handle issues like abortion are suddenly switching sides the moment a state chooses something they disagree with.… Continue reading
As I reflect on the recent news surrounding Trump’s Supreme Court argument, I can’t help but find it both perplexing and concerning. Legal experts have warned that this filing is a massive tactical blunder, filled with weak arguments that have already been picked apart. It’s astonishing to see just how flimsy these arguments are and how little substance they hold.
One thing that strikes me is the lack of actual legal arguments put forth by Trump’s team. Instead, we see a slew of statements that seem more designed to appeal to his base than to present a coherent legal case. Phrases like “Trump hating Judge” or “Presidential immunity” may rouse his supporters, but they do little to bolster his legal standing.… Continue reading
The Only Way Trump Stays on the Ballot Is if the Supreme Court Rejects the Constitution
As an engaged citizen who believes in the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law, I find it deeply disheartening to consider that the only way Donald Trump could stay on the ballot is if the Supreme Court rejects the Constitution. It seems unimaginable that the highest court in our land, entrusted with safeguarding our nation’s founding principles, would even entertain such a notion. However, recent developments and the tone of the court’s proceedings have left me with little hope that they will uphold the integrity of our Constitution.… Continue reading
Democrats rip Clarence Thomas for not recusing himself from the Supreme Court Trump argument, and rightfully so. It is undoubtedly concerning that a Supreme Court justice would not take necessary steps to avoid conflicts of interest. The fact that Thomas’s wife was allegedly involved in the January 6th riots raises significant questions about his impartiality. How can he fairly evaluate Trump’s case when his own wife may have been complicit in the events leading up to the insurrection?
It is essential to maintain the integrity and credibility of the Supreme Court, and that requires judges who are not beholden to any personal biases or connections.… Continue reading
Megathread: Federal Appeals Court Rules That Trump Lacks Broad Immunity From Prosecution
The recent ruling by the federal appeals court, which declares that former President Donald Trump lacks broad immunity from prosecution, is a significant development in our justice system. As someone who has closely followed the legal battles and controversies surrounding Trump’s presidency, I find this ruling to be a crucial step in holding him accountable for his actions.
It is interesting to observe how the tables have turned for Trump, as he is now confronted with the prospect of facing trial. Throughout his time in office, Trump often seemed to operate with a sense of impunity, as if he were above the law.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood