@@BillBarr4President oh so now you know me, my affiliation and what I cheer for. Thanks for the proof of intelligence. I wasn't sure by just reading your "name". I'm not even american, you dummy.
@@BillBarr4PresidentCorrection: jailing of CRIMINALS. The fact that said criminals are pursuing political office to keep themselves out of jail doesn't make them less criminal.
Supreme Courts of yesterday had respect for Americans they served. The Court we see today is extreme and could care less about the interest of "We the People". Their appearance aligns closely with neglect of duty for such disregard of time and urgency on this immunity case.
He's that bird in your nest that isn't one of yours. Your chicks were pushed over the side and fell to their deaths decades ago. Cloud Cuckoo land, straight from the mouth of DJT to voters.
actually, it was. Back during the Nixon era the SCOTUS ruled that the president had full immunity from all civil prosecutions relating to decisions he made while in office. So that is really where the issue arises. if the POTUS has immunity from all civil prosecution then why not also criminal? the reasoning is exactly the same, that being that ist is up to Congress to judge the President's actions, not the courts.
@@JoeSmith-xu2zs explain it to me? The reason the SCOTUS gave when they made the ruling on civil immunity was that the Constitution clearly outlines that it is the role of Congress to judge the President, not the courts. Does this same line of thinking not also apply to criminal prosecutions? Also, the reason Ford actually pardoned Nixon was to avoid this vary question.
the question exists because the Constitution says that it is up to Congress to judge the President's actions. also, keep in mind that a president already has immunity from all civil prosecution for this exact reason. So why not also criminal?
The average American only makes $1.7 million in income over their LIFETIME. That's 30% less than the $2.4 million Justice Thomas failed to report to either the IRS or the Chief Justice, who must make the disclosures public! Try not reporting that lifetime of income to the IRS and you’ll end up like Wesley Snipes. The whole lot of "gifts" should have been timely reported to Chief Justice Roberts and the forgiveness of the $250k RV loan certainly qualifies as reportable income for tax purposes.
Well, Marc Elias of Democracy Docket and who has argued several cases before the SC recently asked the question, "Why are they allowed to receive any gifts at all?". That the real issue is not the disclosure of gifts, but that they are accepting them at all.
@@marshcreek4355 Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2C, Ch. 6 § 620.35 Acceptance of Gifts by a Judicial Officer or Employee; Exceptions (a) (b) A judicial officer or employee is not permitted to accept a gift from anyone who is seeking official action from or doing business with the court or other entity served by the judicial officer or employee, or from any other person whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the judicial officer’s or employee’s official duties. Notwithstanding this general rule, a judicial officer or employee may accept a gift from a donor identified above in the following circumstances: (1) the gift is made incident to a public testimonial and is fairly commensurate with the occasion; the gift consists of books, calendars, or other resource materials related to the official duties of the judicial officer or employee that are supplied on a complimentary basis, so long as acceptance of the gift does not create an appearance of impropriety; the gift consists of an invitation and travel expenses, including the cost of transportation, lodging, and meals for the officer or employee and a family member (or other person with whom the officer or employee maintains both a household and an intimate relationship) to attend a bar-related function, an educational activity, or an activity devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice; the gift is from a relative or friend, if the relative’s or friend’s appearance or interest in a matter would in any event require that the officer or employee take no official action with respect to the matter, or if the gift is made in connection with a special occasion, such as a wedding, anniversary, or birthday, and the gift is fairly commensurate with the occasion and the relationship; the gift consists of meals, lodgings, transportation, and other benefits customarily provided by a prospective employer in connection with bona fide employment discussions, so long as conflicts of interest are avoided; in the case of a judicial officer or employee who has obtained employment to commence after judicial employment ends, the gift consists of reimbursement of relocation and bar-related expenses customarily paid by the employer, so long as conflicts of interest are avoided; the gift is incident to the business, profession or other separate activity of the officer or employee or the spouse or other family member of an officer or employee residing in the officer’s or employee’s household, including gifts for the use of both the spouse or other family member and the officer or employee (as spouse or family member), so long as the gift is of the type customarily provided to others in similar circumstances and is not offered or enhanced because of the judicial officer’s or employee’s official position; or the gift (other than cash or investment interests) is to a judicial officer or employee other than a judge or a member of a judge’s personal staff and has an aggregate market value of $50 or less per occasion, provided that the aggregate market value of individual gifts accepted from any one person under the authority of this subsection does not exceed $100 in a calendar year.
I think this has to be investigated between Crow and Mr.& Mrs.Thomas. They have to establish that this was a quid pro quo (this for that) agreement and what the precise terms of it are. I would want to know if Harlan Crow had ever lived in that house? I'd like to know a lot of things, but doesn't seem we will.
@@marshcreek4355 indeed. They should be subject to the same limits on gifts as the rest of the federal government. It makes no sense for them to have special rules just for them. Congress has the power to actually do this but Congress is split and dysfunctional at the moment.
Indeed, absolute immunity = a dictator. The right wing extremists ON THIS DISCREDITED bench don't want the current POTUS to have any extra legal muscle. But they would damned well love to grant a big GET OUTTA JAIL FREE card to TFG for all his past & future law breaking! 😂😆😄🤡😡
Definitely! The Court has already dug the ditch far deeper than those of us who saw the Capitol attack for what it was believed possible. It can only stop digging by deciding the case, and only the case, before it, denying Trump's immunity claim. It's a Court, not a legislature.
Barbara and her spouse probably have to go to parties, luncheons, and speeches with these people. Understandable either way. Count my hand for disgusted!.
Exactly stop the sugar coating. Call it what is obvious a packed corrupt right wing MAGA court. They are scared and will delay until election. If they rule immunity now then Biden has that same right.
What do we gain by her showing contempt? The ability to go, "Nyah! So there!" That's the way Trumpians act. I call it Lucy van Peltism. Like Lucy van Pelt, Trumpians are stuck at the age of eight, it seems. The rest of us are supposed to be different from them, or else what's the point of opposing Trumpism, when Trumpism is a mode of behavior? If you act just like them, you are like them. Ms. McQuade does everything but beg the parties in Florida to appeal one of these rulings, hoping the 11th Circuit will remove Judge Cannon from the case in favor of a judge who is partial to the law rather than one of the parties to the litigation.
Calling her a coward makes it seem like you didn't understand what she said. She said the SCOTUS' delay is "inexcusable" and that they're "failing to recognize the urgency of the public's right to a speedy trial". That's unambiguously critical. She didn't have to use the word "contempt" for her point to be clear.
The last time there was a question on the limitations of the power of the POTUS before the SCOTUS they took almost a year to rule. You have to remember this decision is not just about Trump, it will affect every POTUS into the future.
i think roberts started out with a great regard for the reputation of the court. now he has either slipped or just lost any control with the magas appointees.
except that is not actually true. Diplomats for example have basically total immunity from local laws. And the POTUS actually already has total immunity from civil prosecutions. So why not also criminal?
@@ryant2568 You keep saying this but it doesn't make it right. No one is above the law, even POTUS. In fact, the office of President should held to an even higher standard of behaviour.
The Appellate Court did a fantastic job. All they had to do was allow the opinion to stand. How can they possibly dispute what the Appellate Court decided?
I think Thomas is right, we should let history and tradition guide us. The early history and tradition of the SC prohibited black men. So Thomas, respect the history you so heavily lean on and leave. And in early America, a black man could not marry a white woman, so you'll need to find a divorce attorney. Oh I see, it's just some history you pick, got it.
The Supreme Court has no business deciding the immunity case with respect to the interests of "future presidents". The job of the Supreme Court -- or any court -- is to decide the case in front of it. Therefore the only relevant question is whether the president has immunity for illegal acts taken in an attempt to overthrow the result of a free and fair election.
@@Frenzy2409 You bring up an interesting point. The Chief Justice has never had a great deal of formal power. But it used to be that the Chief Justice was recognized as the person was charged with protecting the institutional integrity of the Court. and whose views had to therefore be given a great deal of respect. (The most famous example is perhaps Chief Justice Earl Warren, who successfully convinced a potential dissenter from Brown v. Board of Education that the Court's opinion had to be unanimous.) But ever since the Chief Justiceship of Warren Burger, whom none of the other Justices respected, the power of the Chief Justice has evaporated.
They just had to deny certiorari to this case. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit came up with a solid foundation in law to deny immunity. But either Thomas or Samuel convinced them to take the case. PROSECUTE CLARENCE AND SAMUEL FOR FAILURE TO PAY TAXES!
Why is it “a complicated issue”? It seems straightforward in a country that claims no one is above the law, immunity should not be appropriate in any case.
It complicated for the Supereme Court to find a wording that will give Trump near absolute power when returning to office without allowing Biden to do the same while still in office. After all, can't let Biden get tempted with the new executive power to assassinate political opponents when that describes Trump.
The question of immunity is not whether or not the POTUS is a king who can do whatever he wants. The question is around who has the power to judge his decisions and the Constitution is actually pretty clear on this, that role sits with the Congress, not the courts. This was further ratified by the SCOTUS in the Nixon trials where they judged that the POTUS has full immunity from all civil liability for decisions made while in office.
@@richbauer7712 It's not hard to research this stuff. In Nixon vs Fitzgerald the SCOTUS ruled that the POTUS has full immunity from all civil prosecutions for decisions made while in office. The main reason given for the ruling was that the Constitution outlines that it is the responsibility of Congress to judge the POTUS. So if this is the case for civil prosecutions then why not also criminal? In fact, the reason Ford later pardoned Nixon was to avoid this exact question.
It's reasonable, isn't it, for the court to delay for months a debate regarding which criminal acts a president is entitled to? Yes, that's a tough one...
Conservatives on the Supreme Court are working to help Defendant Tiny Hands delay his cases. An innocent man would want to resolve his legal challenges as soon as possible. I know, I said an Innocent man would.
They just need to remember whatever they decide will also apply to President Biden. So if the SC decides that Trump has full presidential immunity then that would also mean that President Biden would also have total immunity. So if he wanted to pull a Trump after the election, there would be nothing that anyone could do about it.
SCOTUS is broken. We need term limits, balanced court, strict rules on accepting gifts and punishments for breaking the rules. These people are not above the law.
It is absurd for this case to have reached consideration that some how the Presidency is immune from Prosecution should they have knowingly participated in the commission of a crime or illegally interphered in anyway to supress, prejudiced, or coverup such an Action. The Founding Father's would have made it clear that the highest Officer Holder the President would be "immune," from Prosecution should a President be involved. Should SCOTUS uphold "Immunity," then Article 2, Section 1, last paragraph "The Oath of Office, would be rendered meanin gless and would be stricken from the Constitution! SCOTUS will not uphold such a foolish notion. Article 2 is just as important as any other Section of the U.S. Constitution and the included "Bill of Rights!"
The U.S. Supreme Court only needed two months from appeal to decision in the Colorado ballot issue, citing the urgency of the printing of ballots. A presidential election apparently requires no such urgency. It's been five and a half months since they took up Trump's appeal, and over 7 months since Prosecutor Smith requested the Court take up the issue immediately citing the pending 2024 election. “Justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." Lord Chief Justice Hewart
It's absolutely appalling to see such a circus going on with SC judges that should be totally IMPARTIAL . Stop this abuse, restore order US. A disgusted Australian...
@@1FingerSalute2DeepState trump caused a insurrection. He tried to overthrow our democracy. This is a fact. donald trump deserves no less than life in prison. And he will answer for the rest of his crimes.
This is the type of question that stumps the SCOTUS, seriously??? Um, how about no one is above any law?!? Sickening to watch this happening in real time and feeling utterly impotent to stop the BS. Cue the Twilight Zone theme.
@@JesseJones-jh3fl: What about when he no longer has that job? Weren’t most of Mr Trump’s alleged and convicted crimes committed while he was a private citizen?
@@JesseJones-jh3fl: Well, I didn’t see any either because I wasn’t there, but I read them in the criminal indictments. You can download those documents from the charging agencies’ websites if you’d like to update a bit. In one case a guilty verdict has already been registered by a jury, so those are no longer alleged crimes but there are still quite a few yet to be determined. Anyway I find it interesting but if you don’t then we don’t need to continue discussing it - up to you.
Excellent segment. McQuade is an excellent expert (and her new book is terrific). I hope Justice Barrett does represent some hope for what I would call "reason," perhaps others might call moderation (or temperance of the ultra far right extemism). It might be nice if the privilege of self-policing were seen as a privilege and not a right by the Court.
Interesting that the Supreme Can't doesn't understand that it's a simple truth. Guilty is guilty and not guilty is not. There is no get out of jail card for some people who have a certain title.
I hope McQuade is right that the defense will appeal if Cannon rules against them. As soon as the 11th circuit gets their hands on this I think they are going move the case to Miami.
Here's where to draw the line. NO
ONE is above the law! Period.
The Dems need to change their catch phrase to. "no one is beyond the reach of our lawfare"
@@BillBarr4President "the dems". who taught you how to speak ? are you one of "the fascists" ?
@@xdecroix How cute, calling me a fascist while cheering on the imprisonment of your political opponents.
@@BillBarr4President oh so now you know me, my affiliation and what I cheer for. Thanks for the proof of intelligence. I wasn't sure by just reading your "name". I'm not even american, you dummy.
@@BillBarr4PresidentCorrection: jailing of CRIMINALS. The fact that said criminals are pursuing political office to keep themselves out of jail doesn't make them less criminal.
NO ONE is above the law... especially judges who are expected to UPHOLD THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Supreme Courts of yesterday had respect for Americans they served. The Court we see today is extreme and could care less about the interest of "We the People". Their appearance aligns closely with neglect of duty for such disregard of time and urgency on this immunity case.
The theocrats only care about “we the people of god” as in their variation of abrahamic cultism
The line is that no man is above the law !
Only Merrick Garland.
@@davidmusser7927You do stupid well, incel.
But according to Trump's core followers, Trump _isn't_ just a man; he's a god, so the laws which apply to mortals don't bind him.
This question wasn't an issue before Trump came on the scene.
He's that bird in your nest that isn't one of yours. Your chicks were pushed over the side and fell to their deaths decades ago. Cloud Cuckoo land, straight from the mouth of DJT to voters.
SCOTUS will rule how and when Trump tells them to.
actually, it was.
Back during the Nixon era the SCOTUS ruled that the president had full immunity from all civil prosecutions relating to decisions he made while in office.
So that is really where the issue arises. if the POTUS has immunity from all civil prosecution then why not also criminal? the reasoning is exactly the same, that being that ist is up to Congress to judge the President's actions, not the courts.
@@ryant2568do you really not understand why potus has immunity in civil and not criminal?
@@JoeSmith-xu2zs explain it to me?
The reason the SCOTUS gave when they made the ruling on civil immunity was that the Constitution clearly outlines that it is the role of Congress to judge the President, not the courts.
Does this same line of thinking not also apply to criminal prosecutions?
Also, the reason Ford actually pardoned Nixon was to avoid this vary question.
I can’t believe this is even a question!! 🤬
Lots of immunity coming for Trump!
you are so right!
It's USA.
@@Paul-mg8fzNot just for Trump. For Biden, Obama, Bush, & Clinton too! For all future presidents! Be careful what you wish for bc you may get it!
the question exists because the Constitution says that it is up to Congress to judge the President's actions.
also, keep in mind that a president already has immunity from all civil prosecution for this exact reason. So why not also criminal?
The average American only makes $1.7 million in income over their LIFETIME. That's 30% less than the $2.4 million Justice Thomas failed to report to either the IRS or the Chief Justice, who must make the disclosures public! Try not reporting that lifetime of income to the IRS and you’ll end up like Wesley Snipes. The whole lot of "gifts" should have been timely reported to Chief Justice Roberts and the forgiveness of the $250k RV loan certainly qualifies as reportable income for tax purposes.
Well, Marc Elias of Democracy Docket and who has argued several cases before the SC recently asked the question, "Why are they allowed to receive any gifts at all?". That the real issue is not the disclosure of gifts, but that they are accepting them at all.
@@marshcreek4355 Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2C, Ch. 6 § 620.35 Acceptance of Gifts by a Judicial Officer or Employee; Exceptions (a) (b) A judicial officer or employee is not permitted to accept a gift from anyone who is seeking official action from or doing business with the court or other entity served by the judicial officer or employee, or from any other person whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the judicial officer’s or employee’s official duties. Notwithstanding this general rule, a judicial officer or employee may accept a gift from a donor identified above in the following circumstances: (1) the gift is made incident to a public testimonial and is fairly commensurate with the occasion; the gift consists of books, calendars, or other resource materials related to the official duties of the judicial officer or employee that are supplied on a complimentary basis, so long as acceptance of the gift does not create an appearance of impropriety; the gift consists of an invitation and travel expenses, including the cost of transportation, lodging, and meals for the officer or employee and a family member (or other person with whom the officer or employee maintains both a household and an intimate relationship) to attend a bar-related function, an educational activity, or an activity devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice; the gift is from a relative or friend, if the relative’s or friend’s appearance or interest in a matter would in any event require that the officer or employee take no official action with respect to the matter, or if the gift is made in connection with a special occasion, such as a wedding, anniversary, or birthday, and the gift is fairly commensurate with the occasion and the relationship; the gift consists of meals, lodgings, transportation, and other benefits customarily provided by a prospective employer in connection with bona fide employment discussions, so long as conflicts of interest are avoided; in the case of a judicial officer or employee who has obtained employment to commence after judicial employment ends, the gift consists of reimbursement of relocation and bar-related expenses customarily paid by the employer, so long as conflicts of interest are avoided; the gift is incident to the business, profession or other separate activity of the officer or employee or the spouse or other family member of an officer or employee residing in the officer’s or employee’s household, including gifts for the use of both the spouse or other family member and the officer or employee (as spouse or family member), so long as the gift is of the type customarily provided to others in similar circumstances and is not offered or enhanced because of the judicial officer’s or employee’s official position; or the gift (other than cash or investment interests) is to a judicial officer or employee other than a judge or a member of a judge’s personal staff and has an aggregate market value of $50 or less per occasion, provided that the aggregate market value of individual gifts accepted from any one person under the authority of this subsection does not exceed $100 in a calendar year.
I think this has to be investigated between Crow and Mr.& Mrs.Thomas. They have to establish that this was a quid pro quo (this for that) agreement and what the precise terms of it are. I would want to know if Harlan Crow had ever lived in that house? I'd like to know a lot of things, but doesn't seem we will.
@@ardentynekent2099 the tax evasion must be prosecuted without question
@@marshcreek4355 indeed. They should be subject to the same limits on gifts as the rest of the federal government. It makes no sense for them to have special rules just for them.
Congress has the power to actually do this but Congress is split and dysfunctional at the moment.
How hard can this case be. No one deserves absolute immunity. 🤷♂️
Indeed, absolute immunity = a dictator. The right wing extremists ON THIS DISCREDITED bench don't want the current POTUS to have any extra legal muscle. But they would damned well love to grant a big GET OUTTA JAIL FREE card to TFG for all his past & future law breaking! 😂😆😄🤡😡
Draw the line at the constitution. No one is above the law.
Joe Biden has been above the law…and we all know that to be true.
I miss the constitution.
We should bring it back.
if there is no line then obama could be arrested for murder
A president is LITTERALLY above the law
😂 the constitution says " shall not be infringed" .or no not that part of the Constitution??
You should not stand for this corruption America!From Australia
Corruption? Like being caught with top secret documents when they didn't have clearance as a Senator?
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Definitely! The Court has already dug the ditch far deeper than those of us who saw the Capitol attack for what it was believed possible. It can only stop digging by deciding the case, and only the case, before it, denying Trump's immunity claim. It's a Court, not a legislature.
What happened to the Constitution? A group of unelected judges determining the future of America, its people, and democracy. Sick
😂😂😂The Supreme Court is the Constitution
Thank you. Most are blatant liars. Sick
@@Paul-mg8fz Or at least their individual interpretations of it. No chance of that going awry, RIGHT?!
@@janetkriegl6720 they are the experts, not a bunch of whiny, bitter Libs.
It is sick and they are showing us who they are…ready to throw the United Statues into a dictatorship, and we should believe them.
Barbara: The SC deserves contempt. Don't be such a coward. Be brave - it's not complicated.
Barbara and her spouse probably have to go to parties, luncheons, and speeches with these people. Understandable either way. Count my hand for disgusted!.
Exactly stop the sugar coating. Call it what is obvious a packed corrupt right wing MAGA court. They are scared and will delay until election. If they rule immunity now then Biden has that same right.
Agree 100% and she is giving the SC the benefit of the doubt..surprised and disappointed with comment as well
What do we gain by her showing contempt? The ability to go, "Nyah! So there!" That's the way Trumpians act. I call it Lucy van Peltism. Like Lucy van Pelt, Trumpians are stuck at the age of eight, it seems. The rest of us are supposed to be different from them, or else what's the point of opposing Trumpism, when Trumpism is a mode of behavior? If you act just like them, you are like them. Ms. McQuade does everything but beg the parties in Florida to appeal one of these rulings, hoping the 11th Circuit will remove Judge Cannon from the case in favor of a judge who is partial to the law rather than one of the parties to the litigation.
Calling her a coward makes it seem like you didn't understand what she said. She said the SCOTUS' delay is "inexcusable" and that they're "failing to recognize the urgency of the public's right to a speedy trial". That's unambiguously critical. She didn't have to use the word "contempt" for her point to be clear.
They deserve contempt!
The lack of urgency shows us SCOTUS is "dragging their feet".
The last time there was a question on the limitations of the power of the POTUS before the SCOTUS they took almost a year to rule.
You have to remember this decision is not just about Trump, it will affect every POTUS into the future.
Beyond that they're corrupt they know people know it🎉
Contempt grows for that out-of-touch court.
Good faith and this Supreme Court don't go in the same sentence.
Cannon needs to be removed and prosecuted.
lol Cannon is going to the Supreme Court
@@shdmd2118 Dream on cupcake.
@@shdmd2118Only in a Trumpist idiotic theocracy would Cannon be enthroned
Well you can have your communist dreams but until then you'll just have to settle with crying😂😂
@@NotLeftAndRightButUpAndDownsomebody's suffering from TDS
They're totally dragging their feet. It's obvious now and inexcusable.
Chief Justice John Robert's is circling the drain.
He's certainly not showing his CHIEF JUSTICE leadership at this crucial time.
I agree
i think roberts started out with a great regard for the reputation of the court.
now he has either slipped or just lost any control with the magas appointees.
Absolute power corrupts Absolutely. Nobody is above the Law.
Enough of these fake cases…they’re over.
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 fake, and corrupt…which is why they went nowhere,
@@Paul-mg8fz Respect to the American citizens of the Grand Juries who heard the EVIDENCE and INDICTED Trump.
except that is not actually true.
Diplomats for example have basically total immunity from local laws.
And the POTUS actually already has total immunity from civil prosecutions. So why not also criminal?
@@ryant2568 You keep saying this but it doesn't make it right. No one is above the law, even POTUS. In fact, the office of President should held to an even higher standard of behaviour.
The Appellate Court did a fantastic job. All they had to do was allow the opinion to stand. How can they possibly dispute what the Appellate Court decided?
I think Thomas is right, we should let history and tradition guide us. The early history and tradition of the SC prohibited black men. So Thomas, respect the history you so heavily lean on and leave. And in early America, a black man could not marry a white woman, so you'll need to find a divorce attorney. Oh I see, it's just some history you pick, got it.
😁💯
What?
@@jeanwesterman3544It shows the hypocrisy. That's plain and simple.
@@Justthe_facts - Nobody on this clown court is as big a thief, liar, and supreme HYPROCRITE as Thomas.......EXCEPT Alito!
The Supreme Court is all full of crap now.
Here’s a crazy thought: draw the line where everyone else has the line drawn.
Yes, just underline what Judge Chutkin said....
But do you really think this court cares about the public ?
NO
2 CHANCES; LITTLE AND NONE
Not a chance!
The Supreme Court has no business deciding the immunity case with respect to the interests of "future presidents". The job of the Supreme Court -- or any court -- is to decide the case in front of it. Therefore the only relevant question is whether the president has immunity for illegal acts taken in an attempt to overthrow the result of a free and fair election.
Thank you. It needed to be said.
The Chief Justice has a lot to answer for...He has no control over his other 5 cohorts
@@Frenzy2409 You bring up an interesting point. The Chief Justice has never had a great deal of formal power. But it used to be that the Chief Justice was recognized as the person was charged with protecting the institutional integrity of the Court. and whose views had to therefore be given a great deal of respect. (The most famous example is perhaps Chief Justice Earl Warren, who successfully convinced a potential dissenter from Brown v. Board of Education that the Court's opinion had to be unanimous.) But ever since the Chief Justiceship of Warren Burger, whom none of the other Justices respected, the power of the Chief Justice has evaporated.
I’m wondering if the future leader of the extreme court has announced herself
They just had to deny certiorari to this case. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit came up with a solid foundation in law to deny immunity. But either Thomas or Samuel convinced them to take the case. PROSECUTE CLARENCE AND SAMUEL FOR FAILURE TO PAY TAXES!
They recognize the urgency of the public's right to a speedy trial, they simply don't want to allow that to happen.
It's not complex! Just state what Judge Chutken said: No one is above the law. End of. No absolute immunity for ANYONE!
Why is it “a complicated issue”? It seems straightforward in a country that claims no one is above the law, immunity should not be appropriate in any case.
It complicated for the Supereme Court to find a wording that will give Trump near absolute power when returning to office without allowing Biden to do the same while still in office. After all, can't let Biden get tempted with the new executive power to assassinate political opponents when that describes Trump.
If there is immunity, President Biden should hold the Presidency and change the Supreme Court.
What's to stop him just holding office until the Immunity argument is settled? After all, it its a not settled matter.
@santyclause8034 I predict Congress can override Biden in that decision. That is way law is written
The question of immunity is not whether or not the POTUS is a king who can do whatever he wants.
The question is around who has the power to judge his decisions and the Constitution is actually pretty clear on this, that role sits with the Congress, not the courts.
This was further ratified by the SCOTUS in the Nixon trials where they judged that the POTUS has full immunity from all civil liability for decisions made while in office.
@ryant2568 you a constitutional or military attorney? Or just an armchair wannabee that thinks they know it all and don't know squat?
@@richbauer7712 It's not hard to research this stuff.
In Nixon vs Fitzgerald the SCOTUS ruled that the POTUS has full immunity from all civil prosecutions for decisions made while in office.
The main reason given for the ruling was that the Constitution outlines that it is the responsibility of Congress to judge the POTUS.
So if this is the case for civil prosecutions then why not also criminal?
In fact, the reason Ford later pardoned Nixon was to avoid this exact question.
Alito and Thomas are clearly corrupt and need to resign, immediately.
Every legal analyst has said this is not a complicated issue.
It's reasonable, isn't it, for the court to delay for months a debate regarding which criminal acts a president is entitled to? Yes, that's a tough one...
YES. And it's not the question they were asked.
Who told the supreme court they get to answer questions they are not asked? Unconstitutional.
You a constitutional or military attorney?
@@richbauer7712 No. Do you have a copy of the constitution that you occasionally bring to political meetings?
@@kurtisengle6256 I use federal law and military law for my references.
Contempt. And a dash of ridicule!
Them sitting there taking pictures always rubbed me the wrong way.
Conservatives on the Supreme Court are working to help Defendant Tiny Hands delay his cases. An innocent man would want to resolve his legal challenges as soon as possible. I know, I said an Innocent man would.
They seem to be concerned more about allowing the current president to have too much immunity.
They just need to remember whatever they decide will also apply to President Biden. So if the SC decides that Trump has full presidential immunity then that would also mean that President Biden would also have total immunity. So if he wanted to pull a Trump after the election, there would be nothing that anyone could do about it.
This shouldn't even be a question, BUT FOR convicted criminal Trump. Why go through all this just for ONE PERSON? They never needed it before....
Where to draw the line?
The line is simple...NO ONE is above the law. Full stop!
Contempt. Its what they show to us. A big fat middle finger.
Get rid of Cannon! She is so obviously biased!
How much does SCOTUS charge in fees to be Trump's top defense counsel?
😅😅😅
Ms. McQuade’s take on the justices’ comments during arguments is reassuring. I hope she’s right.
SCOTUS is broken. We need term limits, balanced court, strict rules on accepting gifts and punishments for breaking the rules. These people are not above the law.
They should have decided the case in front of them as they are supposed to.
Its simple, we dont bow to kings. Why cant they rule with that on mind. Bunch of clowns
I disagree with the experts. This is not a complicated issue.
TERM LIMIT FOR ALL JUDGES
Love Barbara McQuade.
This guest always has cogent and helpful analysis. Great to have on MSNBC and YT.
It is absurd for this case to have reached consideration that some how the Presidency is immune from Prosecution should they have knowingly participated in the commission of a crime or illegally interphered in anyway to supress, prejudiced, or coverup such an Action. The Founding Father's would have made it clear that the highest Officer Holder the President would be "immune," from Prosecution should a President be involved. Should SCOTUS uphold "Immunity," then Article 2, Section 1, last paragraph "The Oath of Office, would be rendered meanin gless and would be stricken from the Constitution! SCOTUS will not uphold such a foolish notion. Article 2 is just as important as any other Section of the U.S. Constitution and the included "Bill of Rights!"
Separation of powers. 3 branch government. Why did we stop teaching civics?
The terror is intense, the loss of life guaranteed if something drastic isn't done. Who gave these creeps licence?..
Trump: "I am your criminally convicted law and order president." 😂🤣😅
He is your future President.
Put that way…..it sounds awful
@@mamia9659 🤣
Get a good giggle for sure
I swear lawyers are like a priesthood watching their fellow priests commit abuse and giving them the benefit of the doubt
Cesspool of society
It’s futile. OBVIOUSLY they’re installing a president.
The U.S. Supreme Court only needed two months from appeal to decision in the Colorado ballot issue, citing the urgency of the printing of ballots. A presidential election apparently requires no such urgency. It's been five and a half months since they took up Trump's appeal, and over 7 months since Prosecutor Smith requested the Court take up the issue immediately citing the pending 2024 election.
“Justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
Lord Chief Justice Hewart
It's absolutely appalling to see such a circus going on with SC judges that should be totally IMPARTIAL . Stop this abuse, restore order US. A disgusted Australian...
What goes around comes around
Contempt.
That would be Eric holder - did he go to jail? Ope no he is on the left
@@1FingerSalute2DeepState trump caused a insurrection. He tried to overthrow our democracy. This is a fact. donald trump deserves no less than life in prison. And he will answer for the rest of his crimes.
I'm soo sick of watching news and podcasts i watched Netflix all weekend and just peeked in Nothing changes,
These judges are clearly not overworked 😂
Anyone who violates law should be held accountable it shouldn’t be any different for someone who was the president period no one is above law
Canon is incompetent disgrace
It's not complicated it's not complicated at all
It is not a complicated issue.
All is lost. What is LaW. What did we stand for.v
No one is above the law, period!
A scotus apologist? I, for one, am shocked, truly.
This is the type of question that stumps the SCOTUS, seriously??? Um, how about no one is above any law?!? Sickening to watch this happening in real time and feeling utterly impotent to stop the BS. Cue the Twilight Zone theme.
The Justices wait for the end of the session so they can skip the country with their owners afterward.
I don't think the people have a right to a speedy trial the accused does
Very simple, the President is bound by the same Laws as all Citizens.
Then the President can't do his job.
@@JesseJones-jh3fl: What about when he no longer has that job? Weren’t most of Mr Trump’s alleged and convicted crimes committed while he was a private citizen?
@@rayray8687 What alleged crimes were those. I still haven't seen a crime.
@@JesseJones-jh3fl: Well, I didn’t see any either because I wasn’t there, but I read them in the criminal indictments. You can download those documents from the charging agencies’ websites if you’d like to update a bit. In one case a guilty verdict has already been registered by a jury, so those are no longer alleged crimes but there are still quite a few yet to be determined. Anyway I find it interesting but if you don’t then we don’t need to continue discussing it - up to you.
@@rayray8687 Politically motivated indictments, and convictions are irrelevant. They don't matter.
I believe the Supreme Court Justices know the urgency. It is by "choice" they delay.
CONTEMPT. Checks and balances should be called an auction block.
They will do whatever causes the most delay
So a bunch of rich guys get to decide what the law is and who it applies to? Nobody else gets a say?
Excellent segment. McQuade is an excellent expert (and her new book is terrific). I hope Justice Barrett does represent some hope for what I would call "reason," perhaps others might call moderation (or temperance of the ultra far right extemism). It might be nice if the privilege of self-policing were seen as a privilege and not a right by the Court.
Contempt! Their behavior is obvious. Corruption!
They need to move forward for the people...
CONTEMPT, COMPLICITY, DELAY, DECEPTION, DEMOCRACY DESTROYER‼️😡
Interesting that the Supreme Can't doesn't understand that it's a simple truth. Guilty is guilty and not guilty is not.
There is no get out of jail card for some people who have a certain title.
I saw Barrett as a good person regardless of her religious views. I read Alito, and Thomas as angry, and resentful.
Im tired of people being "polite" during treachery
Scotus certainly has my contempt. Scotus is giving the middle finger to the citizens of the United States!
No one should be above the law.
Who gave the supreme court the sickle and hammer?
Top-tier video, for sure.
Fdjt😅
Personally I think the other cases should have been placed on hold while they handle the immunity case. It’s the most urgent of ALL cases!
I hope McQuade is right that the defense will appeal if Cannon rules against them. As soon as the 11th circuit gets their hands on this I think they are going move the case to Miami.
They know the urgency...they're choosing to ignore it. They are like Cannon in Florida...delay, delay, delay.
CONTEMPT! Duh
Stop saying it's complicated!
This is not concern, this is delay. Again. Some supreme court.
Good to see ACB has at least half a backbone
Where to draw the line? It’s against the law. For everyone! Omgosh…