4 ms·

A true hero would have done whatever it took to pack the SC and then resigned.

parineum 8mo ago
"Whatever it took" is just appointing more judges. The president can do that. Unfortunately, the result would be that Trump would have just packed it the other direction and this case would have gone the opposite way. Are you should that would have been a good idea?
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  > Unfortunately, the result would be that Trump… ...would have been sentenced for his 34 felony convictions and probably never get reelected?
  - idontwantthis 8mo ago
    Exactly.
  - parineum 8mo ago
    None of these three things are related. SCOTUS doesn't rule on criminal cases, sentencing for state level crimes is done at the state level and he could have still run for president in jail. The fact that the conviction only made his polling go up should tell you what the result of jailing him would have been.
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      > SCOTUS doesn't rule on criminal cases… SCOTUS ruled that the President has immunity from criminal prosecution. (And they very regularly rule on other, more mundane criminal cases. Where on earth did you get the idea they don't? https://oklahomavoice.com/2025/02/25/u-s-supreme-court-tosses-conviction-of-oklahoma-death-row-inmate-richard-glossip/ https://oklahomavoice.com/2025/02/25/u-s-supreme-court-tosse... as a super random example.) > sentencing for state level crimes is done at the state level SCOTUS ruled that said immunity applies to state crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#Opinion_of_the_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#Opinion... This was... rather large news. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/10/trump-unconditional-discharge-sentencing-what-that-means-00197500 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/10/trump-unconditional... > “This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land is a sentence of unconditional discharge,” Merchan said at the sentencing. > The fact that the conviction only made his polling go up should tell you what the result of jailing him would have been. We have precisely zero information on what a campaign by a jailed candidate who can't travel, campaign, or schmooze donors would result in.
      - parineum 8mo ago
        > SCOTUS ruled that the President has immunity from criminal prosecution. > SCOTUS ruled that said immunity applies to state crimes. And yet he was criminally prosecuted. > And they very regularly rule on other, more mundane criminal cases. Sorry, they don't convict in criminal cases. > “This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land is a sentence of unconditional discharge,” Merchan said at the sentencing. You're conflating things again. He was not punished for his crimes. That doesn't mean he was not convicted. You can't be immune and convicted. If he was immune, the case would have been thrown out. He's still a felon and so, clearly, not immune. The immunity granted by SCOTUS was far more limited in scope than news outlets would have you believe. > We have precisely zero information on what a campaign by a jailed candidate who can't travel, campaign, or schmooze donors would result in. This time it will be different, surely!
        ceejayoz 8mo ago
        > And yet he was criminally prosecuted. BEFORE THE RULING. Come on.
  - zzrrt 8mo ago
    Are you saying a Biden-packed SC would have directly resulted in Trump being jailed? How? And my understanding was he was sentenced for the felonies, to unconditional discharge, because he was days away from beginning his second term. So how would that have gone differently just because the SC was packed? Edit: Oh, maybe you’re thinking of things like the Colorado ballot eligibility case. Then if he hadn’t been electable, he would have been sentenced to serve time. Maybe, but are you arguing the Constitutional merits of Trump losing that case? Or are you okay with partisan hacks in the SC as long as they are Dems instead?
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      > Are you saying a Biden-packed SC would have directly resulted in Trump being jailed? I don't think a Biden-packed SC would've found the President to be immune to criminal charges, no. > And my understanding was he was sentenced for the felonies, to unconditional discharge, because he was days away from beginning his second term. He was sentenced to nothing, directly because of the SCOTUS ruling. Per the judge: "the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land". Pre-SCOTUS ruling, no such "encroachment" existed.
      - zzrrt 8mo ago
        His felony convictions came from crimes committed in the 2016 campaign. The judge “subsequently ruled that Trump's conviction related "entirely to unofficial conduct" and "poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch."” (https://abcnews.com/US/judge-trumps-hush-money-case-expected-sentence-unconditional/story?id=116706931 https://abcnews.com/US/judge-trumps-hush-money-case-expected...) so I don’t think it relates to SCOTUS’s immunity ruling.
        ceejayoz 8mo ago
        > Merchan subsequently ruled that Trump's conviction related "entirely to unofficial conduct" and "poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch." Again, at the actual sentencing, his ruling stated an unconditional discharge was "the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land". "I can sentence you, but only to nothing" is functionally not being able to sentence him.
  - zeroonetwothree 8mo ago
    NY v Trump was a state criminal case. The Supreme Court would not have been involved.
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      > NY v Trump was a state criminal case. The Supreme Court would not have been involved. Bullshit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause SCOTUS overturns state laws and convictions plenty. State criminal case: https://oklahomavoice.com/2025/02/25/u-s-supreme-court-tosses-conviction-of-oklahoma-death-row-inmate-richard-glossip/ https://oklahomavoice.com/2025/02/25/u-s-supreme-court-tosse... State laws held unconstitutional: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/state-laws-held-unconstitutional.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/state-laws-held-uncon...
- harimau777 8mo ago
  Yes. Eventually people would get tired of the court getting packed every 4 to 8 years and maybe fix the core weaknesses in the system.
  - ApolloFortyNine 8mo ago
    Bills have gotten introduced to keep it at 9, but are generally shot down by democrats. Most recent one (I think, this isn't the easiest to research) is here. See all the sponsors are Rs[1] Part of the problem is it requires an amendment so you need a super majority. Imo democrats are waiting until they have enough of a majority to tank the reputation hit court packing would bring, but then lock it to 15 after they do so. [1] https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-cruz-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-prevent-court-packing https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley...
linhns 8mo ago
The most stupid idea ever. Biden, despite his frailties, was conscious enough not to do this.
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  Biden shared a delusion with Schumer and first-term Obama, that the Republicans have a behavioral floor they won't gleefully take a jackhammer to. Democrats are finally waking up to this, I think, given the recent retaliatory gerrymandering in CA and VA.
  - Auracle 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      > Both of which (especially Virginia) are much more egregious than what happened in Texas… "Mom, he punched me back after I sucker-punched him!"
      - Auracle 8mo ago
        It's more like "Mom, he punched me after I punched him after he punched me after I punched him after he punched me after..." Nobody would have cared about Texas' gerrymandering except for Trump (stupidly) called for it - pretty much every political party has done it in their state over the years, but it's generally been gently putting their finger on the scale. But now that someone that half of the country have been convinced is literally Hitler had a part in it they feel like they can go absolutely wild with it. Everyone should be mad when gerrymandering happens, whether it helps your side or not. Representatives that feel absolutely secure in their seats are bad at their jobs, whether they're on your side or not. Going so hogwild in 'retribution' isn't virtuous.
    - myvoiceismypass 8mo ago
      How is the citizen-voted CA response - contingent entirely on Texas actually implementing - "much more egregious than what happened in Texas"?
15155 8mo ago
How would those confirmations have worked exactly?
- idontwantthis 8mo ago
  The president is immune to prosecution for official acts. He could have "officially" arrested republican senators, if necessary.
  - Auracle 8mo ago
    You realize that would be an utterly insane road to go down and would hopefully lead to immediate impeachment, right?
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      > You realize that would be an utterly insane road to go down We're already down that road; SCOTUS put us on it. The question is now how much damage it'll do to the car to do a U-turn. > would hopefully lead to immediate impeachment… This describes like a hundred things in the Trump second term so far.
    - myko 8mo ago
      i would've said the same thing about the jan 6th coup attempt but here we are
      - Auracle 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        oenton 8mo ago
        > The one where he specifically told people to protest peacefully? I know the rules say to assume good faith but I don't see how anyone can do that given what you wrote. I'm really struggling to understand how that is your main takeaway from all the events that transpired that day. But rather than rehash that maybe it's better to focus on current events. What are your thoughts on Trump, the first day assuming office in his second term, issuing a blanket pardon for all of the crimes his supporters committed that day in his name? Why would Trump who just wanted people to "protest peacefully," pardon those convicted of... beating officers with a flag pole, stomping on officers' heads, and crushing an officer in a metal door frame using a riot shield? I do agree with you on one thing though: > it's like they're living in another world It truly saddens me to see so many people living in completely different realities. But I honestly don't think it's me or the person you're replying to that decided to relocate.

"Whatever it took" is just appointing more judges. The president can do that. Unfortunately, the result would be that Trump would have just packed it the other direction and this case would have gone the opposite way. Are you should that would have been a good idea?

ceejayoz 8mo ago
> Unfortunately, the result would be that Trump… ...would have been sentenced for his 34 felony convictions and probably never get reelected?
- idontwantthis 8mo ago
  Exactly.
- parineum 8mo ago
  None of these three things are related. SCOTUS doesn't rule on criminal cases, sentencing for state level crimes is done at the state level and he could have still run for president in jail. The fact that the conviction only made his polling go up should tell you what the result of jailing him would have been.
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    > SCOTUS doesn't rule on criminal cases… SCOTUS ruled that the President has immunity from criminal prosecution. (And they very regularly rule on other, more mundane criminal cases. Where on earth did you get the idea they don't? https://oklahomavoice.com/2025/02/25/u-s-supreme-court-tosses-conviction-of-oklahoma-death-row-inmate-richard-glossip/ https://oklahomavoice.com/2025/02/25/u-s-supreme-court-tosse... as a super random example.) > sentencing for state level crimes is done at the state level SCOTUS ruled that said immunity applies to state crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#Opinion_of_the_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#Opinion... This was... rather large news. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/10/trump-unconditional-discharge-sentencing-what-that-means-00197500 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/10/trump-unconditional... > “This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land is a sentence of unconditional discharge,” Merchan said at the sentencing. > The fact that the conviction only made his polling go up should tell you what the result of jailing him would have been. We have precisely zero information on what a campaign by a jailed candidate who can't travel, campaign, or schmooze donors would result in.
    - parineum 8mo ago
      > SCOTUS ruled that the President has immunity from criminal prosecution. > SCOTUS ruled that said immunity applies to state crimes. And yet he was criminally prosecuted. > And they very regularly rule on other, more mundane criminal cases. Sorry, they don't convict in criminal cases. > “This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land is a sentence of unconditional discharge,” Merchan said at the sentencing. You're conflating things again. He was not punished for his crimes. That doesn't mean he was not convicted. You can't be immune and convicted. If he was immune, the case would have been thrown out. He's still a felon and so, clearly, not immune. The immunity granted by SCOTUS was far more limited in scope than news outlets would have you believe. > We have precisely zero information on what a campaign by a jailed candidate who can't travel, campaign, or schmooze donors would result in. This time it will be different, surely!
      - ceejayoz 8mo ago
        > And yet he was criminally prosecuted. BEFORE THE RULING. Come on.
- zzrrt 8mo ago
  Are you saying a Biden-packed SC would have directly resulted in Trump being jailed? How? And my understanding was he was sentenced for the felonies, to unconditional discharge, because he was days away from beginning his second term. So how would that have gone differently just because the SC was packed? Edit: Oh, maybe you’re thinking of things like the Colorado ballot eligibility case. Then if he hadn’t been electable, he would have been sentenced to serve time. Maybe, but are you arguing the Constitutional merits of Trump losing that case? Or are you okay with partisan hacks in the SC as long as they are Dems instead?
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    > Are you saying a Biden-packed SC would have directly resulted in Trump being jailed? I don't think a Biden-packed SC would've found the President to be immune to criminal charges, no. > And my understanding was he was sentenced for the felonies, to unconditional discharge, because he was days away from beginning his second term. He was sentenced to nothing, directly because of the SCOTUS ruling. Per the judge: "the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land". Pre-SCOTUS ruling, no such "encroachment" existed.
    - zzrrt 8mo ago
      His felony convictions came from crimes committed in the 2016 campaign. The judge “subsequently ruled that Trump's conviction related "entirely to unofficial conduct" and "poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch."” (https://abcnews.com/US/judge-trumps-hush-money-case-expected-sentence-unconditional/story?id=116706931 https://abcnews.com/US/judge-trumps-hush-money-case-expected...) so I don’t think it relates to SCOTUS’s immunity ruling.
      - ceejayoz 8mo ago
        > Merchan subsequently ruled that Trump's conviction related "entirely to unofficial conduct" and "poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch." Again, at the actual sentencing, his ruling stated an unconditional discharge was "the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land". "I can sentence you, but only to nothing" is functionally not being able to sentence him.
- zeroonetwothree 8mo ago
  NY v Trump was a state criminal case. The Supreme Court would not have been involved.
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    > NY v Trump was a state criminal case. The Supreme Court would not have been involved. Bullshit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause SCOTUS overturns state laws and convictions plenty. State criminal case: https://oklahomavoice.com/2025/02/25/u-s-supreme-court-tosses-conviction-of-oklahoma-death-row-inmate-richard-glossip/ https://oklahomavoice.com/2025/02/25/u-s-supreme-court-tosse... State laws held unconstitutional: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/state-laws-held-unconstitutional.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/state-laws-held-uncon...
harimau777 8mo ago
Yes. Eventually people would get tired of the court getting packed every 4 to 8 years and maybe fix the core weaknesses in the system.
- ApolloFortyNine 8mo ago
  Bills have gotten introduced to keep it at 9, but are generally shot down by democrats. Most recent one (I think, this isn't the easiest to research) is here. See all the sponsors are Rs[1] Part of the problem is it requires an amendment so you need a super majority. Imo democrats are waiting until they have enough of a majority to tank the reputation hit court packing would bring, but then lock it to 15 after they do so. [1] https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-cruz-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-prevent-court-packing https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley...

linhns 8mo ago

The most stupid idea ever. Biden, despite his frailties, was conscious enough not to do this.

ceejayoz 8mo ago
Biden shared a delusion with Schumer and first-term Obama, that the Republicans have a behavioral floor they won't gleefully take a jackhammer to. Democrats are finally waking up to this, I think, given the recent retaliatory gerrymandering in CA and VA.
- Auracle 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    > Both of which (especially Virginia) are much more egregious than what happened in Texas… "Mom, he punched me back after I sucker-punched him!"
    - Auracle 8mo ago
      It's more like "Mom, he punched me after I punched him after he punched me after I punched him after he punched me after..." Nobody would have cared about Texas' gerrymandering except for Trump (stupidly) called for it - pretty much every political party has done it in their state over the years, but it's generally been gently putting their finger on the scale. But now that someone that half of the country have been convinced is literally Hitler had a part in it they feel like they can go absolutely wild with it. Everyone should be mad when gerrymandering happens, whether it helps your side or not. Representatives that feel absolutely secure in their seats are bad at their jobs, whether they're on your side or not. Going so hogwild in 'retribution' isn't virtuous.
  - myvoiceismypass 8mo ago
    How is the citizen-voted CA response - contingent entirely on Texas actually implementing - "much more egregious than what happened in Texas"?

15155 8mo ago

How would those confirmations have worked exactly?

idontwantthis 8mo ago
The president is immune to prosecution for official acts. He could have "officially" arrested republican senators, if necessary.
- Auracle 8mo ago
  You realize that would be an utterly insane road to go down and would hopefully lead to immediate impeachment, right?
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    > You realize that would be an utterly insane road to go down We're already down that road; SCOTUS put us on it. The question is now how much damage it'll do to the car to do a U-turn. > would hopefully lead to immediate impeachment… This describes like a hundred things in the Trump second term so far.
  - myko 8mo ago
    i would've said the same thing about the jan 6th coup attempt but here we are
    - Auracle 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - oenton 8mo ago
        > The one where he specifically told people to protest peacefully? I know the rules say to assume good faith but I don't see how anyone can do that given what you wrote. I'm really struggling to understand how that is your main takeaway from all the events that transpired that day. But rather than rehash that maybe it's better to focus on current events. What are your thoughts on Trump, the first day assuming office in his second term, issuing a blanket pardon for all of the crimes his supporters committed that day in his name? Why would Trump who just wanted people to "protest peacefully," pardon those convicted of... beating officers with a flag pole, stomping on officers' heads, and crushing an officer in a metal door frame using a riot shield? I do agree with you on one thing though: > it's like they're living in another world It truly saddens me to see so many people living in completely different realities. But I honestly don't think it's me or the person you're replying to that decided to relocate.