A Perfectly Reasonable Amount of Schadenfreude about Things Happening to Trump & His Enablers (Part 2)

The BBQ Pit
9202

Seriously folks, this is the Pit, and yes, we’d likely have a large degree of schadenfreude about Biden having Trump, his enablers, and a number of SCOTUS judges offed with great justification… but that’s all it is. Justification - we know precedent created was a BAD one, and one that only invites further abuse down the line.

It isn’t even really schadenfreude anymore to talk about it, it’s venting. And not even a healthy venting! We’re hoarding our hate (justified again though it may be!) deep to our heart, like some sort of political Gollum, crooning to our precious.

Don’t get me wrong, hate the fucks (still the Pit) and hope like hell they drop dead on their own, get their eventual legal just deserts (emphasis on “just”), and get dragged through future history texts as the traitors and villains they are.

If we win in a week or so, then @puzzlegal is right that we need to make sure that the safeguards roughly 40-50% of the nation is willing to toss get written into law to prevent this from ever happening again. And if we loose, well, some form of civil war seems likely if Trump or cronies carry through with even 10% of their claims.

And if Trump wins (avert avert avert) there’s plenty of time to discuss extreme plans for the good of the nation while Biden is still in office before Trump is placed in charge. Let’s not ratchet up our own tension and blood pressures more than we need to.

9203

We got one of them running in my state.

9204

President Harris could nominate her to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. After she has turned her cases over to a replacement, and is confirmed and sworn in, Harris can announce that the new name for the permanent venue of tennis’s U.S. Open is The Supreme Court, and Aileen Cannon is now a line judge.

9205

Nitpick: Chief Justice of the United States. See 28 USC 1.

9206

Well, yeah. The whole scheme is intended as a bait-and-switch…

ETA: we could even find someone named John Roberts and get a quote from him saying he’s happy for Aileen Cannon to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

9207

“Great Googly-Moogly, I’m now Chef Justice of the United States!”

9208

LOL. Grab a Snickers.

9209

They don’t even use line judges any more. :laughing:

9210

It would be rather hilarious if some idiot stand-up comic ended up (inadvertently) saving American democracy.

9211

Line Judge is still a position in a football officiating crew. Throw her into the NFL (she might even be an improvement).

9212

Exactly right. The might as well have written “ It’s OK If Trump Does It”

9213

One thing I’ve learned about this SCOTUS is that you can’t predict a damn thing about them.

They’ve ruled against Trump so many times yet other times they go so far as to practically ignore the whole rule of law to make a ruling in favor of him.

I’d say a Magic 8 Ball could probably predict them as well as anything anymore.

9214

Pillow guy had to take out the equivalent of payday/title loans to keep featherbedding. Now he’s suing the lending companies for usurious rates because his credit stinks.

Pennsylvania judge strikes down a Republicant try to discredit overseas ballots. Seems they could have tried this months/years ago and they also have no standing, can’t show harm.

Virginia voter cull at last minute is also turfed.

I’ll get the cites when I wake up later.

9215

If you dig into the rulings that go against him, though, you quickly learn that many of the losses are actually wins for him. Trump has repeatedly asked for rulings that are so loony and far afield, favorable treatment to him would play hell with the rule of law for everyone, not just him. So instead, the Supreme Court just sits on the rulings until they become irrelevant. Ultimately, they rule “against him,” but the damage is already done.

Here’s an example. Wa-a-a-a-yyy back in 2019, the House Ways and Means Committee sought Trump’s tax returns from the IRS, under the control of the Treasury Department who was at that time headed up by Trump lackey Steve Mnuchin, for an inquiry into how the IRS conducts audits of presidential tax records. Congress has broad authority to seek the information of any taxpayer they want. The statute language is that the IRS shall turn over any tax return information sought by Congress. Shall. Meaning settled law, non-negotiable.

Only Steve “what-if-we-didn’t” Mnuchin refused to turn over the returns as he was mandated to. Ways and Means sued. The law was entirely on their side. Not a hard call, not even a case for the Supreme Court to take up.

So of course Trump appealed to the Supreme Court! And they took the case!

If the Supreme Court had ruled as Trump wanted, to deny Congress access to his tax records, it would have created a loophole for all presidents to contest access by Congress to audit their records. Not a precedent they wanted to create.

What to do, what to do? Well, they finally ruled against Trump. In November 2022, long after he had exited the presidency and the investigation was moot.

So yes, they ruled against him. But they in fact accomplished his goal of keeping those tax records from the Committee – and from the American people.

This is but one example. Many of their “against Trump” rulings are actually quite favorable to him, I’m afraid. If you can’t immediately determine the benefit of one of their rulings to Trump, just keep digging. It will be there.

9216

So they’re kind of like his fairy godparents, even protecting him from himself.

That’s more than a bit nauseating.

9217

Worse. They’re protecting him from us. This is not in any way, shape or form a normal court.

9218

Yes. And I think it goes farther than that, actually. It seems to me that Roberts is carefully structuring and timing the release of these decisions to frame and influence the perception of the Court’s ostensible neutrality, in a conscious effort to camouflage their true objectives and ideological mission. We don’t get a solid run of five or six clearly pro-Trump or pro-GOP decisions that might damage the Court’s image and give the game away. There’s always one of these pseudo-losses in the mix for “balance,” to bolster the claim of calling balls and strikes. But as you note, it’s never a clear condemnation of Trump’s naked criminality (or a repudiation of the right-wing rearchitecture of society); it may look like a good decision but it’s always limited in scope or otherwise watered-down in some way that doesn’t make the headlines.

The argument that Roberts is somehow the voice of conservative reason, reining in and tempering the worst impulses of the fascist lunatics on the Court, simply turns my stomach. He is absolutely not that. He is the friendly-faced conductor of the whole radical program, and, the way I see it, he’s deliberately organizing the Court’s activities to serve as propaganda, masking the disgusting reality.

9219

Even going so far as to pretend he’s shocked and hurt that we had an issue with the immunity ruling. I saw the real Roberts in the first impeachment hearing. He doesn’t deserve the honor of making laws for the rest of us.

9220

Agree 100% @Horatius . We can’t cower in a corner. Many of these are very serious crimes that undermine democracy. If throwing the book at them further divides us, well that will show us who they are. We already know what they are.

9221

Suddenly, the Patriots win every game.