• Lauchs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Multiple folks have challenged it, every ruling prior to this had ruled that this was a nonsense claim.

    We both know it’s not actually a constitutional challenge, it’s a delay in the hope trump wins the presidency and can, once again, avoid repercussions for his actions.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      SCOTUS may have a different take this one. Maybe not. To me it’s telling only Thomas wrote about it.

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        And zero other justices decided it was a legitimate enough thought to agree with. (Typically, when a Justice writes an opinion like that, others will also sign it. It is telling that none chose to do so.)

        But, if we are taking judges rulings as gospel, does that mean both of us admit that donald trump has committed sexual assault and in a different sexual criminal case, paid hush money to the pornstar with whom he cheated on his wife? Just curious!

        • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          He was found liable for sexual assault. Yes, he paid Josh money to a porn star

          • Lauchs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            So when it comes to the special counsel, you are willing to Unequivocally say he was appointed illegally. When it comes to trump, you won’t say he committed sexual assault only that he was found liable? Or are you just mis-speaking?

            • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              I don’t have a dog in this fight. Why would I take a hard stance over an issue that is best left to the court?

              When you look at the evidence, I don’t believe he committed sexual assault. As someone who worked in the legal system for years, I have never seen such a lack of evidence win in court. She didn’t even have basic facts such as the year, the time, the day, etc. It was just her statement as evidence.

              He was not found guilty of a crime, he was found legally liabel.

              • Lauchs@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                But you’re willing to, despite multiple precedents and repeated legal confirmation, declare the special counsel illegal because one wild judge said so.

                It’s neat.

                • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Do you confuse me with Judge Cannon? I am not Judge Cannon. What I did is provide a cite to explain to you the differences

                  • Lauchs@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    Yes and it doesn’t really defend Cannon’s decision so much as say that it is different from Weiss.

                    But you’ve decided that despite all other rulings, precedent etc that Cannon’s ruling means Smith is illegal.

                    BUT when a court comes to an opinion you don’t like and finds trump guilty of sexual assault, well, that’s a matter for the courts and you don’t believe them.

                    Basically, a nonsense ruling that flies in the face of precedent/common sense/previous cases but supports your side, obviously correct.

                    But a court and jury finds trump committes sexual assault, well, y’know, that may or may not have happened etc.

                    It’s almost like the facts don’t matter, all that matters is whether the ruling is good or bad for your side. Weird.

                    Edit: I’ll also point out that the judge said the “proof convincingly established and the jury implicitly found that Mr trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s vagina with his fingers” and that as many people understand the word rape, trump did exactly that.