Hey, can you let me in? I prefer Tim Hortons coffee to Dunkin, that’s gotta be worth some expedited consideration.

I was in Montréal a few years ago and thought it was awesome that Tim’s served fast food Poutine.

No, but the issue is that some of the evidence that was presented at trial came from after Trump was President, and members of his inner circle had White House roles. Under this new doctrine, simply presenting that evidence that involved White House officials would no longer be allowed, even if that evidence pointed to a crime. So the judge now has to make a determination of how much of the prosecution’s case depended on that. The Judge himself may have to throw the verdict out, if too much of that seeped into the trial. It wouldn’t let Trump totally off the hook, but would necessitate a new trial. Which is bullshit, because there’s nothing the prosecution could have done about it. The SC changed the rules after the trial was over.

This was the very point that Amy Coney Barrett wrote about in her concurring opinion, she felt this part went too far. So this evidentiary point was really decided 5-4, and seems to be the most egregious part of it.

And now, all any corrupt President needs to do is give their corrupt friends roles in the Administration, and they can do all the crime they want, knowing that prosecutors are shielded from ever using evidence from those people in court.

I wouldn’t say that, there might be a town in Siberia that needs a mayor

Remember when they were complaining that Obama was acting like a king? It turns out they like kings after all.

Maybe they’re just looking for certain… Characteristics… in a King.

Conventions aren’t just for amendments. They can be a vehicle to start over from scratch, just like they did in 1789. Then the only barrier we have is that final 3/4 threshold…

… But do you really think it will stop if they hold the thing, come out with a new document dominated by red state ideas, and it fails to get enacted? They will view the 13+ states that are not going along as traitors, and our newly minted President-King will do something rash to get the new document approved.

If a constitutional convention gets called, I fear we’ll end up with a 2-for-1 deal, and those MAGA bastards will finish the job that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee started.

Prepare to be tricked. They need 34 states to call a new convention, and already have 28

https://www.commoncause.org/our-work/constitution-courts-and-democracy-issues/article-v-convention/

What business is it of anyone if the rolls have too many names? People can still only vote once, and the system comes down hard on people who try and trick the system. It should be the State’s job to purge registrations after due process, not the voters’ (and certainly not some random busybody).

You joke, but I have always thought that the reason why the modern Conservative movement leans so heavily on the Founders is that they want to call a constitutional convention to rewrite the whole thing from scratch, and become the new Founders who courts 200+ years from now have to defer to.

“You have the constitutional right to challenge any other voter in your county,” Frank said at Cherokee County Republican headquarters in Woodstock. “In fact, it’s not merely your right. It’s your duty to clean the voter rolls.”

Which Constitution says that? Not the US Constitution, the word “challenge” doesn’t appear there at all. And not in the section of the Georgia State constitution regarding voting, either. Is there a secret MAGA Constitution which only they know about, but applies to everyone? That might explain some of the recent SCOTUS shenanigans.

Ah. I am thinking he may not have that long left

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/congresswoman-files-trademark-butch-body-comment-made-toward-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene/7LSLGPKT6NAFPONB2HC7ZIWCOM/

This ruling basically covered how ex-Presidents might be prosecuted. The President still has some level of accountability to Congress via impeachment , although we’ve already seen how hard that is.

Of course, when Trump’s second impeachment didn’t stick, one of the main reasons Republicans gave for voting against it was that they felt the proper venue for that was in the courts. Now that it is in court, the Supreme Court just said “Sike! Congress needed to act all along”.

Edited to add: Another legal fix would be simply packing the court. Democrats should pound this during this election. They should make sure voters know that if Democrats are given the White House and both houses of Congress, they will fix the court by adding 4 new seats.

They missed their chance to give Trump a Burger King crown

Vice President Jefferies

It doesn’t work that way. First of all, Mike Johnson is the Speaker, and is next in line for the Presidency after the VP, not Jeffries. But that entire list is strictly to see who would be President if the office were suddenly vacant. The House Speaker would only take over if there is a Presidential vacancy while the office of VP is also vacant.

Should Harris becomes President due to Biden leaving office early, the office of VP would become vacant and remain so until President Harris picks a replacement, and that replacement is ratified by both houses of Congress. Sadly, in today’s political climate that is not a guarantee.

When this first dropped, all the news media had kind of cautious titles. It wasn’t until after their legal reporters actually read it that they started getting the point.

Farmer: oh no, that sounds baaaad

NYT is reporting on a hastily arranged call of the DNC finance committee today with some big donors. I don’t see a non-paywalled source about it, but I assume it is happening.

That is a hugely important meeting because if Biden’s donors say they will not support the campaign financially anymore, that will be one of the dominoes that would need to fall to get Biden to back out. Campaigns are expensive, and Trump’s fundraising is focused on his campaign as third priority, after paying his legal bills and Trump himself.

I’m not really sure whether Biden can pull this off or not, but his chances are zero if his big donors stop giving.

After mulling this over for these few hours, I realize what this ruling really does is render the President unaccountable to his Oath of Office. Any official act is presumed to be totally legal by the courts, unless he is impeached and removed from office over it. Much of his communications with his staff is now also not subject to review anywhere but Congress, as part of a formal impeachment proceeding.

A President is now officially a king, restrained by no law in what he can use his office to do, as long as he has the support of half of the House, or 1/3 of the Senate.

Because presiding over the counting of the votes is one of the very few duties the Constitution allocates to the VP, so is covered under this new doctrine. He has the absolute right to conduct that how he sees fit, without regard to whether he is upholding his oath to the Constitution or not, and any conversations he had with the President are part of that duty, and similarly protected. If it turns out he is not upholding that oath, the only remedy is impeachment. (And finding 67 Senators to agree to convict.)

Absolute power, just as the Founders intended.

Everything is going to suddenly be a private record.

Except the audio transcript of Biden’s Special Counsel interview, of course.