Presidential predictions for 2024?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Neddy Bate said:
Oh look, today the Supremes decided not to rule on the question of presidential immunity. Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...
Maybe they are right to look to the Appelate Court to give its opinion first.

Maybe ,once the Appelate Court has ruled the SCOTUS will just accept their opinion and once again refuse to take the case?

So whichever side prevails in the Court of Appeal might prevail overall(and the process might not be delayed )

(SCOTUS gave no reason for its ruling and there were no dissents)
 
geordief said:
Maybe they are right to look to the Appelate Court to give its opinion first.
Click to expand...
It strikes me as a delaying tactic on the part of the Supreme Court, because the case will probably land back there later on. In the meantime, the window is open for a second Trump term as President.

By refusing to decide the issue now, the Supreme Court has left it to individual states to decide, which means a whole lot more litigation and legal differences across the states, which seems to be the way that the current Supreme Court likes things to work.
Maybe ,once the Appelate Court has ruled the SCOTUS will just accept their opinion and once again refuse to take the case?
Click to expand...
I don't think they will have the choice, in the long run.
 
James R said:
It strikes me as a delaying tactic on the part of the Supreme Court, because the case will probably land back there later on. In the meantime, the window is open for a second Trump term as President.

By refusing to decide the issue now, the Supreme Court has left it to individual states to decide, which means a whole lot more litigation and legal differences across the states, which seems to be the way that the current Supreme Court likes things to work.
Click to expand...
This particular issue(immunity) stems from a federal case, and a decision laid down by a federal judge, and was appealed to a federal appeals court. So, if the appeals court agrees with the judge, this will apply nationwide unless the Supreme court overrules it, or issues a stay while they take it up. We've had a couple of instances now since Roe v Wade was overturned that Federal judges (both in Texas) made rulings that would effect reproductive rights nationwide. One dealing with approval of a birth-control drug and the other dealing with stripping confidentiality for young people seeking care under Title X.
 
The Supreme Court isn't really supposed to get involved in politics and politics is the only reason for expediting this vs going to the appeals court. That's why Jack Smith is doing it and I can see why the SC might not want to do that.

I don't blame Smith for trying this approach but I don't really blame the SC for their actions either.
 
Seattle said:
The Supreme Court isn't really supposed to get involved in politics and politics is the only reason for expediting this vs going to the appeals court. That's why Jack Smith is doing it and I can see why the SC might not want to do that.

I don't blame Smith for trying this approach but I don't really blame the SC for their actions either.
Click to expand...

If the Supreme Court wanted to, surely they could decide and tell us whether they want to declare that all presidents have immunity, as they ultimately should have to do for the country's peace of mind. If their decision applied to all presidents, past present and future, then it would surely not be political. It just happens to help Donny if they delay that right now. But don't worry, since this is a prediction thread, I will predict that they will say that Trump does have immunity, (not other presidents in other cases, just Trump in this case). If you think that's crazy, just recall that in 2000 they made a decision that only applied to G.W. Bush in his particular situation.
 
Last edited:
Seattle said:
The Supreme Court isn't really supposed to get involved in politics and politics is the only reason for expediting this vs going to the appeals court. That's why Jack Smith is doing it and I can see why the SC might not want to do that.

I don't blame Smith for trying this approach but I don't really blame the SC for their actions either.
Click to expand...
It was worth the effort by Smith. There's precedent for the SC fast-tracking things regarding such important matters, but with a 6-3 split at present, it's not surprising that they chose not to take it early, and their lack of explanation behind the decline seems to hint at it being political rather than judicial reasoning, But that may just be me reading too much into it.
 
Neddy Bate said:
But don't worry, since this is a prediction thread, I will predict that they will say that Trump does have immunity, (not other presidents in other cases, just Trump in this case). If you think that's crazy, just recall that in 2000 they made a decision that only applied to G.W. Bush in his particular situation.
Click to expand...
It's possible. I think it all depends on whether they rule the evidence to be within the outer-perimeter of his duties as President.
E.g. the speech he gave on the day... was this the act of a President, or the act of someone on the election trail, still campaigning. If the former then it'll be deemed within the scope of immunity. I can't see the SC expanding the "outer perimeter" to include a President simply on the election campaign trail, as this would bestow a significant unfair advantage to them over their opponent - e.g. they could slander an opponent without civil redress, while their opponent could not.

If there is other evidence that he incited insurrection simply during his campaign trail, or previous to becoming President, or since he stopped being President, then, again, I'm not sure that the SC will determine this to be within scope of his immunity.

So what question is being asked of the SC? What evidence is being considered? As said, I'm not up to speed on what evidence has been presented. My prediction is that the SC will disallow some but not others, at least if that's the sort of response they can give. Maybe clarity will come via the Appeals court, as that is what will ultimately get challenged one way or the other.
 
If trump wins again the country has completely failed. Trump is clearly a criminal and an enemy of the Constitution. He is an insurrectionist and the only question is whether this disqualifies him from holding office? If that argument wasn't so pathetic it would be laughable. Of course he is ineligible and unfit to hold office. This was obvious to me about ten minutes after he came down the escalator and began his 2016 campaign. The last 8 years have completely destroyed my faith in the system and half the electorate. It is very difficult to not think of every trump supporter as my personal enemy. I will never say the pledge again. It is now meaningless to me. As long as trump was in office, just the sight of a flag made me feel sick.

I'm no huge fan of Biden but he had better win. If there is anything left of the country I loved and was willing to die for if needed, trump will spend the rest of his life in prison. It is still difficult for me to believe this has happened to my once great nation. It is like we are living in some kind of Orwellian nightmare come true; in fact, we are!

My prediction is that Biden will win. If not, there will be very dark times ahead and the America so many have died for will be nothing but a sad, painful memory. This in turn will plunge the world into chaos. Trump will never leave office peacefully. I said so the first time and I was right. But this time he won't make the same mistakes. He will be uncontrollable. The safeguards that prevented a successful insurrection are being removed and will continue to be removed, and we will be living under a cruel and malevolent dictator. Civil war and a world war are sure to follow as authoritarian regimes continue to rise and take control. The world is teetering on the edge of another dark age.

That is my prediction. Happy New Year.

[I was a Republican for much of my life and never have been a Democrat; except for I think two years because I wanted to vote in the primary]
 
Last edited:
I fear that if Trump wins his retaliation to his enemies will be epic.
It could tear the nation apart.
 
A new poll says that 67% of Republicans think that Biden's election was not legitimate. That means that almost 7 out of 10 republicans are idiots. I find that amazing or actually I find it quite disheartening.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
If trump wins again the country has completely failed. Trump is clearly a criminal and an enemy of the Constitution. He is an insurrectionist and the only question is whether this disqualifies him from holding office? If that argument wasn't so pathetic it would be laughable. Of course he is ineligible and unfit to hold office. This was obvious to me about ten minutes after he came down the escalator and began his 2016 campaign. The last 8 years have completely destroyed my faith in the system and half the electorate. It is very difficult to not think of every trump supporter as my personal enemy. I will never say the pledge again. It is now meaningless to me. As long as trump was in office, just the sight of a flag made me feel sick.

I'm no huge fan of Biden but he had better win. If there is anything left of the country I loved and was willing to die for if needed, trump will spend the rest of his life in prison. It is still difficult for me to believe this has happened to my once great nation. It is like we are living in some kind of Orwellian nightmare come true; in fact, we are!

My prediction is that Biden will win. If not, there will be very dark times ahead and the America so many have died for will be nothing but a sad, painful memory. This in turn will plunge the world into chaos. Trump will never leave office peacefully. I said so the first time and I was right. But this time he won't make the same mistakes. He will be uncontrollable. The safeguards that prevented a successful insurrection are being removed and will continue to be removed, and we will be living under a cruel and malevolent dictator. Civil war and a world war are sure to follow as authoritarian regimes continue to rise and take control. The world is teetering on the edge of another dark age.

That is my prediction. Happy New Year.

[I was a Republican for much of my life and never have been a Democrat; except for I think two years because I wanted to vote in the primary]
Click to expand...
Sounds about right. The only saving grace with Trump - and it's not much, but something - is that he has no agenda other than personal satisfaction. There is no Mein Kampf and no plan for military expansionism. It will all be about making him feel grand, in the tasteless bling bling style he loves.

But you are right I am sure that he will not honour the 2 term rule, he will (further) corrupt the justice system by firstly destroying faith in its fairness and then by using it to mete out retribution to his enemies, including those in the media, which will chill free expression and weaken political opposition. And he will destroy the reputation of the US as a force for good in the world. By the end of his rule, which will be when he dies - or is shot - the US will need a whole new constitution and judicial system.
 
origin said:
A new poll says that 67% of Republicans think that Biden's election was not legitimate. That means that almost 7 out of 10 republicans are idiots. I find that amazing or actually I find it quite disheartening.
Click to expand...
I think those people largely live in a self-imposed media bubble, constantly fed misinformation by well-funded networks that are happy to keep supplying them with it. Those people, in turn, unsurprisingly vote to put into government people who are just like them.

Who benefits from amassing a huge following of willing dupes who will do their bidding? A few rich guys (it's mostly men) whose objectives are, above all else, to further enrich themselves and their associates.
 
origin said:
A new poll says that 67% of Republicans think that Biden's election was not legitimate. That means that almost 7 out of 10 republicans are idiots. I find that amazing or actually I find it quite disheartening.
Click to expand...
"imagine how stupid the average person is then realize half of all people are stupider than that." - George Carlin.
 
I'm not sure which existing thread to post this, but since it could impact the Presidential outcome, here seems as good as any:

Anyhoo - the DC Court of Appeals has been grilling the lawyers on both sides of Trump's claim of Presidential Immunity. Trump's position (or at least that of his lawyers) is that a President must be impeached and convicted by the Senate before any criminal litigation can be carried out in the judicial system. So if the President isn't impeached and found guilty by Senate for an action they have undertaken while in office then they can not be tried in a court of law. Irrespective of what that action is.

One of the judges pointedly asked the lawyer to consider the example of a President who ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival, and asked whether they could subsequently be tried in a court of law. Trump's lawyer said, words to the effect, that they could but only if they had first been impeached and convicted by the Senate.
That is such a frightening position to take.

So if the President did such, but then resigned prior to the impeachment process (e.g. Nixon resigned so as to avoid impeachment), Trump's lawyer is arguing that they could not then be held accountable in a criminal court of law. As such, any President, on the last day of their term, and not seeking re-election, they could do anything they wanted, criminal or otherwise, because (as I understand it) they could not subsequently be impeached and found guilty by the Senate - as no longer being in office.

This is what Trump is arguing for, through his lawyers. That is what he constantly appeals to as "Absolute Presidential Immunity".
And c.50% of America want to vote for him??????
 
Trump's lawyer's argument are weak but as far as your point about not being able to impeach someone if they have already resigned, that's not clear. There is argument both ways on that one.
 
Sarkus said:
I'm not sure which existing thread to post this, but since it could impact the Presidential outcome, here seems as good as any:

Anyhoo - the DC Court of Appeals has been grilling the lawyers on both sides of Trump's claim of Presidential Immunity. Trump's position (or at least that of his lawyers) is that a President must be impeached and convicted by the Senate before any criminal litigation can be carried out in the judicial system. So if the President isn't impeached and found guilty by Senate for an action they have undertaken while in office then they can not be tried in a court of law. Irrespective of what that action is.

One of the judges pointedly asked the lawyer to consider the example of a President who ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival, and asked whether they could subsequently be tried in a court of law. Trump's lawyer said, words to the effect, that they could but only if they had first been impeached and convicted by the Senate.
That is such a frightening position to take.

So if the President did such, but then resigned prior to the impeachment process (e.g. Nixon resigned so as to avoid impeachment), Trump's lawyer is arguing that they could not then be held accountable in a criminal court of law. As such, any President, on the last day of their term, and not seeking re-election, they could do anything they wanted, criminal or otherwise, because (as I understand it) they could not subsequently be impeached and found guilty by the Senate - as no longer being in office.

This is what Trump is arguing for, through his lawyers. That is what he constantly appeals to as "Absolute Presidential Immunity".
And c.50% of America want to vote for him??????
Click to expand...
They want immunity from reason.
 
Seattle said:
Trump's lawyer's argument are weak but as far as your point about not being able to impeach someone if they have already resigned, that's not clear. There is argument both ways on that one.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Tom Cotton, two years ago: “[T]he Senate lacks constitutional authority to conduct impeachment proceedings against a former president. The Founders designed the impeachment process as a way to remove officeholders from public office — not an inquest against private citizens.”
Ron Johnson: “I believe an impeachment trial of a former president is unconstitutional and would set a very dangerous precedent. There is no provision in the Constitution for holding such a trial over a former president who is now a private citizen.”
Rob Portman: “As I look at the Constitution it says that impeachment is for removal and keeping someone from running for office again, not or."

The Constitution states that impeachment applies to "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States" - but does not list anyone else it applies to. You could argue that ANYONE can be impeached, including your neighbor who is playing his music too loud, but that's a tough argument to make. And if that's true, then Trump's argument becomes "no one anywhere can be convicted of any crime unless they are impeached first."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top