My impression of Justice Alito is that his mindset is rigid, hierarchical, paternalistic, misogynistic, and somewhat religiously fundamentalist. He wants the Court to defer to whomever is in power, so that order and hierarchy are maintained. The law isn't to benefit the people, it's to maintain order and control - just like in authoritarian religions and countries.
The simple question for SCOTUS is did President Trump fail to “protect, defend and honor the constitution” the answer is no. What President has not defended the constitution? Donald Trump. This is a singularity, not a general respected tradition. Thanks Joyce
Thank you Joyce. I’m not feeling very optimistic between your thoughts on the Supreme Court, and Andrew Weissman, who on MSNBC,said we are one vote away from losing democracy. He was referring to the Chief Justice.
I read another piece (can’t remember where) that said the Justices are arrogant in their belief that Trump will not disregard them. Or replace them.
I don’t know… sometimes I think Leonard Leo, the Kochs, Mitch McConnell, and all those who have been playing the long game have won.
If the SC decision comes out and Alito and any others confirm that a President can commit a crime such as killing an opponent or something similar and has immunity, then he needs to be impeached and removed or the court needs to be expanded so that those undemocratic voices are in a small minority on the Court.
Cannon said the quiet part out loud and is proudly showing her stripes. She clearly doesn’t believe for her eyes what happened on January 6th, she takes in the MAGA Koolaid. She is an outright liar. She needs to recuse herself from the case or the 3rd District needs to do it for her!
Thank you Joyce, especially for those questions to Alito. I wish Alito and the other four men would come clean and just admit that no matter what crimes Trump committed they will not hold him accountable. I also wish the Democrats in the House of Representatives would file intent to impeach all five male members of the Supreme Court on counts of failure to uphold the Constitution as written, and specific failure to abide by Article 3 Section 1 "shall hold their offices during good behavior". One can hardly call upholding criminal behavior as found by the Grand Juries in all cases against Trump as being "good behavior".
What happened to the SC only addressing, “the case in front of them?” Alito is another pompous ass whom believes he is smarter than all medical doctors, subject matter experts, legislators, other attorneys, hell, EVERYBODY.
And one answer that might have been given to Justice Alito is, "Err, you may have noticed that that's what happened last time, Your Honour. That's why we are here. Perhaps your brother Justice Thomas, or his wife, can explain it better than I."
Well said Joyce. I would ask Alito why do you completely ignore the facts and circumstances of this case which are that Trump acted almost entirely outside the scope of his official duties. He has no presidential duty to influence the Georgia Secretary of State to change the vote count. He has no official duty to participate in the Senate Hearing to certify the vote. He has no official duty to assemble the mob including racist Proud Boys etc and encitr the mob to violence at the capital. What official duties are you concerned that he was performing in this case?
“If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”
I was confused at first, I don’t think of Alito as a comedian, and I thought him intelligent. Now I must decide what he could possibly mean by a statement like this. He paralleled 45’s exact situation, except he added, “…bitter political opponent,” which isn’t true for 45. That addition also takes it out of the comedy realm. So, is he actually stupid, amoral, or part of the current coup mob trying to destroy our constitution and democracy? Or was he trying to provoke a response from the other justices to such a ridiculous idea? If the latter, the response was inadequate.
They are clearly on Trumps side.( im sure you suspect this as well) Their outrageous behaviors need to be addressed and dealt with.
What scares me is even With Biden winning there will be a coup where tyere is a revolt claiming that tye election was rigged and could be thrown to the supreme court to decide snd they hand the presidency to Trump
Aye, thank you, Joyce. With respect to The Robes' refusals to address the question before it, namely the Appellate Court ruling on tRump's criminality; Andrew Weissman's statement this weekend that we are perhaps only one (1) vote away from the end of our democracy, stands as the most terrifying take that I've ever heard (yet).
The Robes on the right call to mind the expression "normalization of deviancy".
This sure sounds to me that Alito is saying that a bitter opponent (Biden) is prosecuting Trump. (Note that Alito says the “opponent” is doing the prosecuting). In other words, he may not have been talking about the future at all.
Unless he can come up with a violation of another NY statute allowing stiffer financial penalties, Merchan's hands are pretty much tied under the state contempt law. Short of confinement, however, he can make things difficult procedurally where he has a good deal of discretion, as we saw when he allowed the government to withhold who they initially planned to call as witnesses. This can be very effective. He's savvy enough to walk that line between discretion and due process grounds for appeal. We shall see.
I believe that the radical right wing of the Supreme Court is looking for reasons to justify what they already plan to do, which is to let Trump off the hook until at least after the election. Their motive is easy to discern. They are far right “Christian” conservatives and want to enact an entire program that includes outlawing abortion, removing regulation against big business, lowering taxes, vastly shrinking government, the list goes on. Helping Trump get re-elected means that program will continue unabated and that there will be no expansion of the Supreme Court to defang them. They are corrupt politicians in robes.
We have good evidence to support my damning conclusion. Although an appointment to the Supreme Court is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, a person of high integrity would not accept that appointment flowing from the corrupt and cynical machinations of Mitch McConnell to refuse a hearing for President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, and of ignoring his own unwritten rule to get Amy Coney Barrett seated. There is also the sworn testimony of the recent reactionary appointees recognizing the established precedent of Roe V. Wade and then deciding the Dobbs case. So they had no ethical qualms about taking a stolen seat or grabbing one at the opportunity or lying to get on the Court.
My impression of Justice Alito is that his mindset is rigid, hierarchical, paternalistic, misogynistic, and somewhat religiously fundamentalist. He wants the Court to defer to whomever is in power, so that order and hierarchy are maintained. The law isn't to benefit the people, it's to maintain order and control - just like in authoritarian religions and countries.
The simple question for SCOTUS is did President Trump fail to “protect, defend and honor the constitution” the answer is no. What President has not defended the constitution? Donald Trump. This is a singularity, not a general respected tradition. Thanks Joyce
Thank you Joyce. I’m not feeling very optimistic between your thoughts on the Supreme Court, and Andrew Weissman, who on MSNBC,said we are one vote away from losing democracy. He was referring to the Chief Justice.
I read another piece (can’t remember where) that said the Justices are arrogant in their belief that Trump will not disregard them. Or replace them.
I don’t know… sometimes I think Leonard Leo, the Kochs, Mitch McConnell, and all those who have been playing the long game have won.
If the SC decision comes out and Alito and any others confirm that a President can commit a crime such as killing an opponent or something similar and has immunity, then he needs to be impeached and removed or the court needs to be expanded so that those undemocratic voices are in a small minority on the Court.
Cannon said the quiet part out loud and is proudly showing her stripes. She clearly doesn’t believe for her eyes what happened on January 6th, she takes in the MAGA Koolaid. She is an outright liar. She needs to recuse herself from the case or the 3rd District needs to do it for her!
Thank you Joyce, especially for those questions to Alito. I wish Alito and the other four men would come clean and just admit that no matter what crimes Trump committed they will not hold him accountable. I also wish the Democrats in the House of Representatives would file intent to impeach all five male members of the Supreme Court on counts of failure to uphold the Constitution as written, and specific failure to abide by Article 3 Section 1 "shall hold their offices during good behavior". One can hardly call upholding criminal behavior as found by the Grand Juries in all cases against Trump as being "good behavior".
What happened to the SC only addressing, “the case in front of them?” Alito is another pompous ass whom believes he is smarter than all medical doctors, subject matter experts, legislators, other attorneys, hell, EVERYBODY.
And one answer that might have been given to Justice Alito is, "Err, you may have noticed that that's what happened last time, Your Honour. That's why we are here. Perhaps your brother Justice Thomas, or his wife, can explain it better than I."
Well said Joyce. I would ask Alito why do you completely ignore the facts and circumstances of this case which are that Trump acted almost entirely outside the scope of his official duties. He has no presidential duty to influence the Georgia Secretary of State to change the vote count. He has no official duty to participate in the Senate Hearing to certify the vote. He has no official duty to assemble the mob including racist Proud Boys etc and encitr the mob to violence at the capital. What official duties are you concerned that he was performing in this case?
“If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”
I was confused at first, I don’t think of Alito as a comedian, and I thought him intelligent. Now I must decide what he could possibly mean by a statement like this. He paralleled 45’s exact situation, except he added, “…bitter political opponent,” which isn’t true for 45. That addition also takes it out of the comedy realm. So, is he actually stupid, amoral, or part of the current coup mob trying to destroy our constitution and democracy? Or was he trying to provoke a response from the other justices to such a ridiculous idea? If the latter, the response was inadequate.
They are clearly on Trumps side.( im sure you suspect this as well) Their outrageous behaviors need to be addressed and dealt with.
What scares me is even With Biden winning there will be a coup where tyere is a revolt claiming that tye election was rigged and could be thrown to the supreme court to decide snd they hand the presidency to Trump
Iam traumatized. And that is no exaggeration.
Aye, thank you, Joyce. With respect to The Robes' refusals to address the question before it, namely the Appellate Court ruling on tRump's criminality; Andrew Weissman's statement this weekend that we are perhaps only one (1) vote away from the end of our democracy, stands as the most terrifying take that I've ever heard (yet).
The Robes on the right call to mind the expression "normalization of deviancy".
Jesus wept.
Thanks for setting the stage for Tuesday. Perspective and context help.
This sure sounds to me that Alito is saying that a bitter opponent (Biden) is prosecuting Trump. (Note that Alito says the “opponent” is doing the prosecuting). In other words, he may not have been talking about the future at all.
Unless he can come up with a violation of another NY statute allowing stiffer financial penalties, Merchan's hands are pretty much tied under the state contempt law. Short of confinement, however, he can make things difficult procedurally where he has a good deal of discretion, as we saw when he allowed the government to withhold who they initially planned to call as witnesses. This can be very effective. He's savvy enough to walk that line between discretion and due process grounds for appeal. We shall see.
I believe that the radical right wing of the Supreme Court is looking for reasons to justify what they already plan to do, which is to let Trump off the hook until at least after the election. Their motive is easy to discern. They are far right “Christian” conservatives and want to enact an entire program that includes outlawing abortion, removing regulation against big business, lowering taxes, vastly shrinking government, the list goes on. Helping Trump get re-elected means that program will continue unabated and that there will be no expansion of the Supreme Court to defang them. They are corrupt politicians in robes.
We have good evidence to support my damning conclusion. Although an appointment to the Supreme Court is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, a person of high integrity would not accept that appointment flowing from the corrupt and cynical machinations of Mitch McConnell to refuse a hearing for President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, and of ignoring his own unwritten rule to get Amy Coney Barrett seated. There is also the sworn testimony of the recent reactionary appointees recognizing the established precedent of Roe V. Wade and then deciding the Dobbs case. So they had no ethical qualms about taking a stolen seat or grabbing one at the opportunity or lying to get on the Court.