Supreme Court: Trump's Taxes are Fair Game

[_Gunnar]

It's too bad it took so long for that case to get all the way to the Supreme Court, but I'm glad they decided against Trump. It's kind of a relief to find that Gorsuch is not as blindly sycophantic a supporter of Trump as I feared.

Thomas and Alito dissented because they apparently think the President is a King, but as a practical matter, the opinion Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Roberts signed is narrowly politically beneficial to Republicans as it forestalls any chance of subpoenas winning court cases until after the 2020 election, but allows for what otherwise should be an uncontroversial outcome. It's easy to interpret this as a more sophisticated political act for Republicans, which has been Roberts MO for some time, and doesn't necessarily represent a total lack of politically driven decision making.

Yes, I get your point on that. The conservatives on the Supreme Court, however much they would like Trump or some other Republican to be immune from subpoenas or investigations or indictment for corruption or unlawful behavior, they would hate to set a precedent that might deter them from doing the same or worse to any future Democrat President, no matter how flimsy the pretext.

[_Gunnar]

It's kind of a relief to find that Gorsuch is not as blindly sycophantic a supporter of Trump as I feared.

Yeah, man. Huge relief. Sometimes I wonder if some of his decisions are made specifically to send that message.

Yeah, that might be his actual, specific motivation, but I guess we should take what we can get.

[_subgenius]

...: ALL Native Americans are subject to federal ...

all you really need to know, and aministrations will always proceed accordingly.
#dontforgettheylost

[_DoubtingThomas]

And if Trump is reelected

He won't.

[_Chap]

And if Trump is reelected

He won't.

It must be nice to feel so sure about it. But there is still quite a while to go, and Trump knows the risks he runs well enough to be willingly to tell any lie, and reward any lawbreaker, in order to ensure that he does not lose his presidential immunity.

So, all the same, don't leave it to other people to do the voting, OK?

[_DoubtingThomas]

He won't.

It must be nice to feel so sure about it. But there is still quite a while to go, and Trump knows the risks he runs well enough to be willingly to tell any lie, and reward any lawbreaker, in order to ensure that he does not lose his presidential immunity.

So, all the same, don't leave it to other people to do the voting, OK?

I doubted a Clinton victory in 2016. Trump would really need a big miracle to win re-election.

[_moksha]

No I probably wouldn't believe you anyway.

So your questions are purely rhetorical.

[_Gunnar]

He won't.

It must be nice to feel so sure about it. But there is still quite a while to go, and Trump knows the risks he runs well enough to be willingly to tell any lie, and reward any lawbreaker, in order to ensure that he does not lose his presidential immunity.

So, all the same, don't leave it to other people to do the voting, OK?

Excellent point. Judging by how often Trump has got away with stuff that few would previously have predicted would be possible, even for a President, complacency at this point would be dangerously foolish.

[_EAllusion]

It must be nice to feel so sure about it. But there is still quite a while to go, and Trump knows the risks he runs well enough to be willingly to tell any lie, and reward any lawbreaker, in order to ensure that he does not lose his presidential immunity.

So, all the same, don't leave it to other people to do the voting, OK?

I doubted a Clinton victory in 2016. Trump would really need a big miracle to win re-election.

He got a big miracle to win his first election. This should cause you to have some caution this many months out.

[_EAllusion]

What do you want to bet?

It overturned a conviction of the type that affects thousands of other people. Is the game here that no matter how significant the consequence, you just declare it not significant?

Before we set terms, let us first acknowledge your erroneous interpretation. My post mentioned a significant "point" about the OP and you would extrapolate that as an assertion of consequences - for which I did not make. But now you would prop up a charge of hypocrisy in order to give credence to your unsupported opinion, er, prophecy for consequences.
Notwithstanding the white tears or your armchair legal prognostications, I fail to see a valid argument for any "significant legal consequence there and elsewhere".
ergo, the simple post reply of -"bet", intended in the contrary.

This is gibberish.