I listened for about five minutes on the peloton. Listening to him trying to defend these hypotheticals when pressed is getting uncomfortable.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I see they are endorsing an airstrike by Biden.

In a question to Sauer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor posed a hypothetical: If the president ordered the military to assassinate a rival he views as corrupt, "is that within his official act for which he can get immunity?"
Sauer answered that, "it would depend," but "we can see that could well be an official act."

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Agreed.

To Robert's question about whether accepting a bribe to name an ambassador is an official act, and therefore immune, and his response it that those two actions would have to be severed because part is official and part is private... but you can't indict on one part without the other...

It all serves to prove that arguably very smart people can sound very smart and somewhat convincing while arguing a position that is borderline or full-on bull shit.

In a nutshell:

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

We're getting to the "we don't suffer fools lightly" part of this.

Justice Sotomayor: “If the president ... orders someone to assassinate [a rival], is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?”

Trump’s attorney: “It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act.”

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Justice Jackson seems pissed in her questioning.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

No they have won, their objective, they have no expectations of winning this case. But they won by delaying, which is there legal right, and by taking this case, the Supreme Court has made themselves look like complete idiots having to listen and ask questions about this. They should never have taken this case up.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

Yes.

And her point was great. Essentially (paraphrasing): You are worried about a chilling effect on the Presidency. I'm worried about emboldening a President, who could then run a crime ring out of the White House with no fear of penalty if we grant absolute immunity.

His response, that it has essentially been that way for 200 years fell flat.

I don't know how the decision process works on this one, but I still want to see how Alito and Thomas vote, if this is one where they all vote.

Not tuned in. Let me guess, Thomas is a silent participant today?

His lawyers argument that is the strength of the institutions ability to resist a rogue POTUS is what’s kept our Republic intact for 200 years, ergo immunity would not affect that continuity, is embarrassing. Wow.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Sure, it's a win in that sense. But I think it's also just fine that we get in writing things that we previously thought didn't need writing down.

Similar to some Federal election processes that we previously thought were perfunctory ceremony.

First they declined to expedite it. Then they took it. That was not an accident.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Trumps lawyer has already won. They never should have heard this absurd argument.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

And am I correct that after they decided to take it (which everyone knew they would) they placed it on the last day of the session? As in, they gave Trump a maximum delay.

Yes. Now watch them take 6 months to rule on it.

This is a big fucking joke.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

This is an absurd case that should not have gotten this far at all.

The Republican justices are hearing this case in order to delay trump’s trial. This is once again showing SCOTUS is exercising partisan power to help trump.

I don’t think the nut jobs on the court are nutty enough to rule in favor of trump, but we need to be very vocal that the court is helping trump by hearing the case in the first place.

From what I know (which, admittedly, isn't much), the President would never "order" it; he'd ask the CIA to "look into it" and the CIA would get it done

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

If they had let the lower court ruling stand, we would have had it in right.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

This..

The lower court ruling covered all the bases. There is nothing that they will add to that ruling.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

And their ruling may be to remand back to the DC circuit to decide if leading coup is an official act, delaying it even further.

And of course Alito is suggesting we should be worried that a loser of an election could be tossed in prison if they don't have immunity (we'll become a banana republic, essentially), which is also Alito expressing no faith in the American judicial system.

And Kagan is now pushing back on that by supporting that we have a robust legal system with many steps, appeals, fail safes (admitting that we get it wrong, now and then), and if they all fail haven't we destroyed our democracy.

Alito just can't help himself. He has to argue the stupid side through a "question."

That's why we gave blanket immunity to murderers, because without it they are more likely to kill witnesses and such.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"