Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

Featured Replies

Gotta respect the long game of 45 other U.S. Presidents across, as of literally today, precisely 235 years to plan out not obtaining indictments or immunity from the other 44 of them.  All plotted out over centuries to just singularly fuck over Donald Trump in an unfair, political witch-hunt!  It is absolutely how fucking stupid we are as a country but made it this far.  Welp, had a good run...

  • Replies 28.5k
  • Views 3m
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • HillCountryBevo
    HillCountryBevo

    Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

  • Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
    Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

    When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

  • HillCountryBevo
    HillCountryBevo

    Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, BearSchlong said:

So 44 previous presidents served their terms and stepped away without being indicted. Hmmm

Heck 9 of them managed to walk away from failure to win re-election without trying to usurp the Constitution and remain in power.   

On 2/3/2024 at 9:19 AM, Bullneck said:

 

 

1st pic isn't her.

  • Popular Post

Thankful to live in a country where ideas like “is the president allowed to do crimes with impunity in perpetuity?” are legitimately considered by our high courts for weeks as the world burns. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz

So what's it say because I deleted Xitter

7 minutes ago, texasdago said:

So what's it say because I deleted Xitter

Mitchell is credited with devising the novel enforcement mechanism in the Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8 (or SB 8), which outlaws abortion after cardiac activity is detected and avoids judicial review by prohibiting government officials from enforcing the statute and empowering private citizens to bring lawsuits against those who violate it.[4][5] On September 1, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to enjoin the enforcement of SB 8, marking the first time that a state had successfully imposed a pre-viability abortion ban since Roe v. Wade.[6]

Mitchell has argued five times before the Supreme Court of the United States and authored the principal merits brief in eight Supreme Court cases.[1] Mitchell has also written amicus curiae briefs in the Supreme Court. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Mitchell and a colleague urged the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade, arguing that overturning Roe should eventually lead to the reversal of other "lawless" court decisions such as those establishing a right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), while distinguishing and defending the right to interracial marriage recognized in Loving v. Virginia.[13] [14]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Finally.

So what's next?  Is that final or does he get to appeal again? 

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

So what's next?  Is that final or does he get to appeal again? 

He can ask for a rehearing en banc (meaning asking for the entire circuit to rehear it rather than just the original panel) from the appellate circuit, which is not an appeal as of right, but discretionary. Of course, he can seek a writ to the Supreme Court, which is also discretionary, with a couple of percentage points chance of it being accepted, but for the fact it is such a sexy hot button high profile case with huge implications. 

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So what's next?  Is that final or does he get to appeal again? 

order says to stay the ruling to determine if he appeals to SCOTUS (which is a foregone conclusion)

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So what's next?  Is that final or does he get to appeal again? 

...the road goes on forever and the appeals never end. 

More details for those who don't want to click through to X/Twitter:

and of course the legend weighs in:

 

21 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So what's next?  Is that final or does he get to appeal again?

He'll file a writ of replevin in state court in Arkansas. That should push this back again another two years at least.

1 minute ago, MissingInAction said:

If he didn't do anything wrong why does he care so much about immunity?

WITCH HUNT!!!

Build wall! No, wait… 

His truth social rants from the shitter are going to be epic today.

DC Circuit:

seth meyers GIF by Late Night with Seth Meyers

So does this ruling affirm that a sitting POTUS does have executive immunity, or does it just say should such a thing exist, it doesn't extend past time in office?

4 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

If he didn't do anything wrong why does he care so much about immunity?

It's a little transparent. 

12 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Scene at Mar a LagoSnl Ketchup GIF by Saturday Night Live

Time for Donald to therapy eat... 

ketchup fountain GIF

36 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Finally.

 

33 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So what's next?  Is that final or does he get to appeal again? 

Yeah, He'll wait to submit his appeal to the USSC on the last day but my bet is they decline to hear it unless the money flows to hear it just to delay and then they deny the appeal anyway but the straightforward apprach would be to deny the appeal.

20 minutes ago, The Dog said:

More details for those who don't want to click through to X/Twitter:

maudlebowski-thorough.gif

1 minute ago, TexasEd said:

 

Yeah, He'll wait to submit his appeal to the USSC on the last day but my bet is they decline to hear it unless the money flows to hear it just to delay and then they deny the appeal anyway but the straightforward apprach would be to deny the appeal.

4 have to agree to hear it, 5 for a decision in his favor

I've said it before and I'll say it again - he doesn't have 5 votes in his favor on this.  The liberals + Roberts + one of Kavanaugh/ACB will rule against him.  Kavanaugh typically follows Roberts. 

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So does this ruling affirm that a sitting POTUS does have executive immunity, or does it just say should such a thing exist, it doesn't extend past time in office?

They specifically call out the a former president can be prosecuted for any CRIMES committed while in office.  Executive immunity would still apply to official duties because the official duties of the president are not criminal.

 

That bit about following the advice of pillow salesmen and conspiracy theorists instead of say the advice of Whitehouse counsel is coming back to bit him.

Edited by TexasEd

  • Popular Post

So I guess Biden can't now stab him in the face and yell "total immunity!" like Michael Scott. Sort of a mixed bag.

The fraud penalty in New York should drop any minute now as well unless something has changed. It would be nice to put a second harpoon into this orange whale this week or even today.

Perhaps we're a step closer to a victory of the obvious over the convoluted.

10 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

WITCH HUNT!!!

Team Trump at Mar-A-Lago deciding on their next move.

image.png.03427af358b805a85881cba523fa785d.png

  • Popular Post

It's absolutely horrifying that saying "the President is not a king" would be a split decision at SCOTUS but we know it would. It's beyond depressing that everyone knows it but it's not actively terrifying the entire nation. 

Just now, RomaVicta said:

The fraud penalty in New York should drop any minute now as well unless something has changed. It would be nice to put a second harpoon into this orange whale this week or even today.

Perhaps we're a step closer to a victory of the obvious over the convoluted.

Yep, but over at fox news they'll have some outrage story about Taylor Swift or andocrene harvesting instead of these rulings.

46 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Finally.

Full House 90S Tv GIF
 

SC is going to sit on this 

10 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

 

Yeah, He'll wait to submit his appeal to the USSC on the last day but my bet is they decline to hear it unless the money flows to hear it just to delay and then they deny the appeal anyway but the straightforward apprach would be to deny the appeal.


Right wing SC justices about to cash in !

11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

4 have to agree to hear it, 5 for a decision in his favor

I've said it before and I'll say it again - he doesn't have 5 votes in his favor on this.  The liberals + Roberts + one of Kavanaugh/ACB will rule against him.  Kavanaugh typically follows Roberts. 

I think there's a decent chance they actually reject cert.  Roberts doesn't want 3 justices writing a dissenting opinion that a President is actually a king and probably doesn't want to write a majority opinion on this himself either. I don't know that I'd bet on it, but I think he's probably strongly considering trying to get ACB and Kav to join him in rejecting this one.

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

4 have to agree to hear it, 5 for a decision in his favor

I've said it before and I'll say it again - he doesn't have 5 votes in his favor on this.  The liberals + Roberts + one of Kavanaugh/ACB will rule against him.  Kavanaugh typically follows Roberts. 

Personally, I'm looking forward to Scalia's mental gymnastics to disavow his previous opinion from 2014 that the President was indeed an "officer of the United States".

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think there's a decent chance they actually reject cert.  Roberts doesn't want 3 justices writing a dissenting opinion that a President is actually a king and probably doesn't want to write a majority opinion on this himself either. I don't know that I'd bet on it, but I think he's probably strongly considering trying to get ACB and Kav to join him in rejecting this one.

I agree.  I think there's a bigger chance they just don't take it up.  Roberts knows his court / reputation won't ever recover from it. 

  • Popular Post
3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Personally, I'm looking forward to Scalia's mental gymnastics to disavow his previous opinion from 2014 that the President was indeed an "officer of the United States".

If Scalia issues an opinion on this at all, we've got bigger problems than Donald Trump. 

22 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So does this ruling affirm that a sitting POTUS does have executive immunity, or does it just say should such a thing exist, it doesn't extend past time in office?

fn 8: "We do not address policy considerations implicated in the prosecution of a sitting President or in a state prosecution of a President, sitting or former."

  • Popular Post
1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Personally, I'm looking forward to Scalia's mental gymnastics to disavow his previous opinion from 2014 that the President was indeed an "officer of the United States".

All you have to do is cite Thatwasthen v. Now, 666 U.S. 66, 6 (1974)

Opening paragraph from his petition for writ of ceriorari:

 

"I do not recognize the authority of a court that hangs the gold-fringed flag. A flag with gilded edges is the flag of an admirality court. An admirality court signifies a naval court-martial. I cannot be court-martialled twice.

That is all. "

38 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's absolutely horrifying that saying "the President is not a king" would be a split decision at SCOTUS but we know it would. It's beyond depressing that everyone knows it but it's not actively terrifying the entire nation. 

some language on that in the opinion, which is a nice exposition on the history of our laws.

 

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 69 (nice): "The President of the US would be liable to be impeached, tried and, upon conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law."  The court looked at that language and rejected Trump's argument that the 'afterwards' requires a prior conviction with impeachment.  ". . . Hamilton stress that the President must be unlike the 'king of Great Britain,' who was 'sacred and inviolable.' It strains credulity that Hamilton would have endorsed a reading of the Impeachment Judgment Clause that shields Presidents from all criminal accountability unless they are first impeached and convicted by the Congress."

25 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I agree.  I think there's a bigger chance they just don't take it up.  Roberts knows his court / reputation won't ever recover from it. 

 

31 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think there's a decent chance they actually reject cert.  Roberts doesn't want 3 justices writing a dissenting opinion that a President is actually a king and probably doesn't want to write a majority opinion on this himself either. I don't know that I'd bet on it, but I think he's probably strongly considering trying to get ACB and Kav to join him in rejecting this one.

That would be the biggest coward move of all time considering they are taking all of the other trump cases. This presents a novel issue and concerns the head of the executive branch, it would be absurd to deny cert under those circumstances. I honestly also don't see even Alito or Clarence providing god king immunity. I predict that it will be affirmed per curiam, meaning unanimously, without a written opinion, and issued faster than ordinary appeals.

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.