Which the Republicans loved

If he wins in 2024, Liddle Donnie will run in 2028. Amendment 25 says he can't serve, doesn't prevent him from running. If Democratic states keep him off the ballot, Republican states will keep the Dem off the ballot, the election will go to the House, where each state has 1 vote, which will vote for Liddle Donnie. Who's going to stop him from Presidenting?

? I studied this, but it was 60 years ago, so I can't count on my memory. Judicial review was the signal significance as I remember: SCOTUS had the right to rule on the case. I see nothing about immunity.

An infamous jurist famously observed that he could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. If a prosecutor can impanel all jurors he likes he can go after anybody, president or not. That won't happen to a prominent White man in the US, though we have railroaded people of color and people we didn't like, such as Eugene Debs, who ran from jail in 1920.

Pages 6-8 of the Trump application for stay dicusses this matter at length. I'm not a lawyer but as best as I can understand the two positions are that Trump's side argues that he must be impeached before he can be held liable for 'political' acts, done while in office, which might be deemed illegal by his political opposition after a President leaves office. Smith argues the opposite. There are of course also other issues.
On Application for Stay of the Mandate To Be Issued by the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - No. 23A745 https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...ited-states-2/

'"Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion is repeated and emphatic on this point. “[W]hatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion.” Id. When it comes to the President’s discretionary acts, “the decision of the executive is conclusive.” Id. “By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience.”'


Special Prosecutor Jack Smith (RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE MANDATE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT) - No. 23A745

"It is true that courts cannot enter an injunction against a sitting President directing his performance of official acts, see id. at 14 (citing authorities and Department of Justice filings), but that protection against judicial direction of the President’s ongoing conduct of office does not suggest that courts are disabled from holding a former President accountable when his actions violate federal criminal law." https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...resp_FINAL.pdf

I've often pondered Trump's fate had he tried to overturn a Putin "election". Hmmm. I doubt he's be such a fan then. I guess it's a matter of whose Ox is gored. Curiouser and curiouser...

I'd like know how it is legal for Biden to forgive student loans.

Liddle Donnie is a spoiled 4-year-old thrilled by the attention his tantrums attract. He isn't evil. People attach themselves to him to pursue their own agendas, ranging from Paul Ryan, who just wanted a tax cut (a normal government decision) to the Federalist Society, which wants to take over the judiciary, to Stephen Miller who wants to keep immigrants out, Islamophobes who want to keep Muslims out, anti-choicers, 'Christian' supremacists, White supremacists. Do you remember Liddle Donnie's first mention of a possible SCOTUS justice? Mary Anne Barry, a pro-choice appeals court judge. He had nothing to do with Ryan's tax cut, other than signing it, and knew nothing about his judicial appointees, was disappointed in the ones who followed the law rather than his preferences.

You can do this to anybody anytime. If you want to aim at a former president you can refer to his acts before or after his tenure. Is that what's happening in our courts?


I read Marbury v. Madison; it's not too long, or too difficult. I notice that they refer to English law often; many 'conservatives' reject referring to any foreign law. It indeed rules that the president exercises supreme power, not subject to question, for ’mere political acts‘.

The word political has become useless in modern speech. It used to be the adjective for the word policy; Marshall means pursuing government policy, not selling yourself to people and whipping up hate against others or running for office. That limits the application of the ruling to the pursuit of government policy, which is set by law. It doesn't mean suborning witnesses, trying to get a VP to throw out legitimate electors, offering up one's own, storming the Capitol, trying to get the leader of another country to manufacture evidence against an electoral rival, bribing paramours, giving away government secrets. If he wants to do those things legally, he can ask Congress to pass a law.

Impeachment isn't mentioned.

I thought it was illegal for Obama to kill those 4 American citizens. I don't think any court could fairly convene a jury to convict him. I think the same will happen in Liddle Donnie's trials: any fairly-convened jury will have at least 1 dissenter.

It's just as immoral to kill millions of Vietnamese, Afghans, and Iraqis, but not illegal.

Finally, Marbury v. Madison is just a SCOTUS decision, not the Constitution. SCOTUS can vacate it whenever they like. This particular court has shown a facility for vacating precedents.

So your greatest concern is with college students trained for high level work that could benefit the public if they weren't saddled with predatory debt, but pay no mind to the BILLIONS of dollars in Corporate Welfare, like Oil Depletion Allowance, Bank and Saving and Loans bailouts, and as far back as the late 1800s subsidy of many industries like Railroads and Alcoa Aluminum?

Our Government has long tried to incentivize areas that increase the GNP and keep the brightest working in their fields of expertise instead of flipping burgers. If you're unfamiliar with the above mentioned corporate welfare programs, it would be highly enlightening to look those up.

Down here "on the ground" where most of us live, I personally know many who lost their entire life savings retirement funds from Savings and Loan companies that got bail-out money instead of jail time. I seriously don't think paying off Student Loans would have anything remotely like that negative result, and that's just one of many.

You might wanna take a hard look at priorities.

So could DT be elected and in prison at the same time?

According to this Politico article the answer is yes.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...rison-00090931

Eugene Debs ran from prison in 1920, received a million votes. Harding pardoned him.

It is not a secret that passing a bill in the Senate takes, with some specific exemptions, a 60% majority. If the minority party stands together to block a bill there is no way that the Majority party can pass it unless they hold 60% of the seats. Guess what, neither party holds 60% and Republicans can block almost everything. And they DO! But HR2 was not the bipartisan bill that would have solved more immigration issues and financed aid to Ukraine and Israel. That was a Senate bill and was bipartisan: but even the Republicans who had helped write the bill voted against it.

Let me say that again: they had a bill that increased border security, revamped and restricted asylum entry, gave conservatives everything they had asked for on Ukraine and Israel, and that Republicans had negotiated and helped to write and they STILL killed it. Not because there was anything in it that was not exactly what they wanted, but because Trump said to kill it. He was afraid that if it passed with Biden's signature then Biden would get credit and it might swing the election for Democrats.

Democrats were willing to compromise for the good of the country, and Republicans gave up the country for the good of the party. This kind of crud is why I stopped voting for Republicans, even the ones I like.

Even if Trump were NOT guilty of crimes against the country, multiple states, and the Constitution itself, he should still never be elected for any office: he is literally to bad for the country. Multiple state courts have found that the evidence that he is guilty of insurrection is adequate to prevent him from appearing on any ballot in that state: constitutionally they have that right and the SCOTUS has no basis to override them, but with this SCOTUS we will have to wait and see.

The two cases: immunity and state rights to control their elections, are up for SCOTUS review.

I think this best illustrates the stark differences between the two candidates. Biden is not above playing politics, but, he more often than not puts the interests of America ahead of his own. Trump is a nihilist, he doesn't believe in anything other than putting his own interests first. The republican members of Congress are cowards.

If the court rules for absolute presidential immunity, and Biden then has Liddle Donnie assassinated, and 34 senators acquit, that'll be cool with you?

By Amy Howe on March 4 at 12:09 p.m.

"In an unsigned ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. The court held that only Congress can enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars former officers of the United States who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office again, against candidates for federal offices." https://www.scotusblog.com/

"States have no authority to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday, short-circuiting efforts by his detractors to declare him disqualified over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol." https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...-says-00144673

^ That is quite possibly a terrible outcome for Mr. Trump.

SCOTUS has effectively said that Congress has the authority to make the final decision on whether Mr. Trump is allowed to be disqualified from the ballot.

How many Republican members of the current Congress are opposed to Mr. Trump's 2024 Presidential campaign?

According to one source, there are at least 11 representatives and 6 senators on that list.

Those numbers would give the Democrats enough support to have Mr. Trump disqualified... and, according to SCOTUS, there would be nothing he could do about it.

^^^ Correct of course but the ballgame was over had SCOTUS ruled against him. Several of those on that list had endorsed DeSantis and Haley. Haley said today that she agreed with the ruling. It's difficult to see anything passing both the House and Senate.