3 ms·

"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

"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...

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...