• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump and Jail

JoeMorgue said:
Yeah we got told they wouldn't overturn Roe V Wade as well and we were being unreasonable and dramatic for saying they would over turn it.

But sure this time will be different.
Click to expand...

There's an opinion right now in federal court that doctors have standing in an abortion case because they have an aesthetic interest in looking at pregnant women and compares the interest to viewing wildlife.

It’s well established that, if a plaintiff has “concrete plans” to visit an
animal’s habitat and view that animal, that plaintiff suffers aesthetic injury
when an agency has approved a project that threatens the animal. See Lujan,
504 U.S. at 564. See also Humane Soc’y v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 45, 52 (D.C. Cir.
1988) (standing where agency expanded approval for hunting, “depleting the
supply of animals . . . that . . . [plaintiffs] seek to view” and causing plaintiffs
to witness “animal corpses”); Am. Bottom Conservancy v. Army Corps of
Engineers, 650 F.3d 652, 657 (7th Cir. 2011) (standing for birdwatchers to
challenge agency permit that would allow development and thus “diminish
the wildlife population visible to them”); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA,
861 F.3d 174, 183 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (standing where agency authorization to
use pesticide created “demonstrable risk” to beetles and butterflies that
plaintiffs intended to view).

Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them.
Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends
and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working
with their unborn patients—and experience an aesthetic injury when they are
aborted.
Click to expand...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145.543.1_1.pdf

Right wing judges are real freaks

Edit: To make the relevancy to the discussion more clear, "standing" is foundational legal concept and here's an example of a right wing judge going to an insane reach to grant it to their preferred anti-abortion advocates. There's zero reason to believe that a right wing court will restrain themselves in the interest of upholding good legal theory if they are sufficiently motivated to reach a certain result.
 
Last edited:
Solitaire said:
It looks like a logistical nightmare to me, four courts and 81 felonies.
Click to expand...
That's only counting criminal charges. He also has multiple civil cases against him... Another E. Jean Caroll lawsuit, a class action suit for his role in a pyramid scheme, lawsuits related to his role in the Jan 6 terrorist attack, a copyright case (over Trump's use of music during his election campaign), the fraud lawsuit by the NY attorney general.

I am assuming a criminal case would take precedence over a civil case. Still, Trump's calendar is going to be very busy for the next year.
Better for the Republicans to just find someone else.
None of the others running for the nomination have the popularity.
Click to expand...
It would have been better for the republicans to turf Trump back in the middle of his first term. They have the perfect opportunity... the first impeachment. Ok, it might have harmed them in the 2020 election by alienating the MAGAchud, but they could have started to rebuild back then, giving them a better shot at 2024.

Instead, they stuck behind Trump, and he keeps stinking up the Republican party like a dead woodchuck under a porch, with a loss in 2020, a loss of control of the senate (in part due to Trump's support of lackluster candidates and his general unfavorabiity) .
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I don't think there is any mechanism for the SC to pardon a person or cancel their prison term unless they claim that the trial was faulty.
Click to expand...
If Trump somehow did win the 2024 election, The supreme court would not have to issue a pardon.

Instead, they could (in theory) rule that "the constitution assumes the president is a free man", and thus toll/delay any incarceration until after Trump has completed his term. Not a pardon, but it would keep Trump out of jail.

(That's a possibility anyways. They could also say "nothing in the constitution says the president cannot be jailed")
 
Segnosaur said:
Who would think the "optics are too awful"?
Click to expand...

To anyone who noticed that with a change of political party, the incoming one incarcerated the outgoing one. There's just no good look there.

The MAGAchud might, but they also think its awful to have Trump indicted in the first place.

Most Democrats certainly wouldn't... they probably see the optics of "nobody is above the law... even an ex-president" as a good thing.
Click to expand...

They should. I sure do. President Lincoln did. But President Carter blanket pardoned the draft dodgers, and President Nixon didn't serve a day in a cell. Sometimes you don't want a Bastille Day if you can avoid it. Letting Trump walk is greasing the peaceful wheels Stateside.
 
Segnosaur said:
If Trump somehow did win the 2024 election, The supreme court would not have to issue a pardon.

Instead, they could (in theory) rule that "the constitution assumes the president is a free man", and thus toll/delay any incarceration until after Trump has completed his term. Not a pardon, but it would keep Trump out of jail.

(That's a possibility anyways. They could also say "nothing in the constitution says the president cannot be jailed")
Click to expand...

SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to pardon anyone.

And the Constitution doesn't assume that.

Making it up out of whole cloth.
 
The Constitution says whatever SCOTUS says it does so the "But the Constitution says SCOTUS can't do that!" is a distinction without difference.
 
acbytesla said:
That's a giant leap.
Click to expand...
No, it's just changing a few words which are already good law in existing jurisprudence. The reasoning remains the same.

acbytesla said:
There is no enumerated power to commit election fraud.
Click to expand...
Neither is there an enumerated power for executives to have privileged discussions with their closest advisors, hence the reasoning the court used in U.S. v. Nixon to bootstrap themselves into the idea from other constitutional powers.

acbytesla said:
You are arguing against any limits for the President.
Click to expand...
No, I'm making a prediction about how Alito & co. will argue when they conclude that the federal government is not allowed to imprison a serving president. It's just a guess, though, they might simply copypasta the logic of the existing DoJ memo.

acbytesla said:
BTW, In US v Nixon SCOTUS in an 8 - 0 ruling decided that the President does not have an unlimited right to confidentiality and ordered that the tapes be released to the Watergate Committee.
Click to expand...
Right, but my point remains that they made up the "right to confidentiality" even though it is nowhere enumerated in the founding documents or amendments thereto. Creating hitherto unknown rights is totally normalized in modern jurisprudence and it makes no sense to pretend otherwise.
 
acbytesla said:
SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to pardon anyone.

And the Constitution doesn't assume that.

Making it up out of whole cloth.
Click to expand...

Segnosaur specifically stated that wouldn't be a pardon. SCOTUS does not have the power to grant pardons. But it does have the power to make rulings. And this is entirely unsettled law since there is no federal law that says "States cannot incarcerate the President-elect", nor is there a law that says "States can do so". The only the thing SCOTUS really has is that fact we are a Federal nation. Power is shared between the Federal government and the States. We don't know how they'd rule given the circumstance.

Its obvious that the President cannot carry out his duties in a State pen. Good god, what happens if theres an emergency during non-visiting hours, how does our head of state receive foreign dignitaries? I mean its nonsensical. Does this mean the State must release him during his term, or does it mean we must find a new POTUS.. ie the VP.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Segnosaur specifically stated that wouldn't be a pardon. SCOTUS does not have the power to grant pardons. But it does have the power to make rulings. And this is entirely unsettled law since there is no federal law that says "States cannot incarcerate the President-elect", nor is there a law that says "States can do so". The only the thing SCOTUS really has is that fact we are a Federal nation. Power is shared between the Federal government and the States. We don't know how they'd rule given the circumstance.

Its obvious that the President cannot carry out his duties in a State pen. Good god, what happens if theres an emergency during non-visiting hours, how does our head of state receive foreign dignitaries? I mean its nonsensical. Does this mean the State must release him during his term, or does it mean we must find a new POTUS.. ie the VP.
Click to expand...

I think he will be given House Arrest at the White House, if he wins the election. If he loses, House Arrest at Mar-a-Lago.
 
Darat said:
Why would he even need a secret service detail in a prison?
Click to expand...

lobosrul5 said:
Indeed, he'd have all the protection he needs from the white supremecist gangs in the prison.
Click to expand...

Did you know the Secret Service doesn't protect the President while at Camp David. Why? because it is considered secure. There he is protected by the marines.
 
Hercules56 said:
I think he will be given House Arrest at the White House, if he wins the election. If he loses, House Arrest at Mar-a-Lago.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, ex Presidents have no such privilege. If Trump is lucky, he will be in a military brig.
 
Hercules56 said:
I think he will be given House Arrest at the White House, if he wins the election. If he loses, House Arrest at Mar-a-Lago.
Click to expand...

But who enforces that? He is the chief executive. He is all federal agent's boss. Congress could pass a law that supersedes that I suppose but why would he sign such a law? And if he doesn't sign it what do you think the odds are that he'd be overridden? That takes a two-thirds majority.

If he doesn't win, I agree house arrest is the most likely scenario.
 
acbytesla said:
Did you know the Secret Service doesn't protect the President while at Camp David. Why? because it is considered secure. There he is protected by the marines.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton visited the USS Theodore Roosevelt was I stationed on there, back in would have been 98, 99 give or take. I was actually surprised by how small of an "entourage" he brought with him out to the ship and I'm assuming not all of them were Secret Service.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Secret service agents are not permitted to roam around the prison.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't roam around, they would simply accompany Trump everywhere he goes. But yes I'm sure the Governor of DC or NY or GA would allow the SS to walk around the prison in order to fulfill their duties.
 
Hercules56 said:
They wouldn't roam around, they would simply accompany Trump everywhere he goes. But yes I'm sure the Governor of DC or NY or GA would allow the SS to walk around the prison in order to fulfill their duties.
Click to expand...

There is no governor of DC, and the mayor of DC has ******* to do with the federal prison system. And I'm not so sure in NY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom