Comment on Is Trump's election pledge a "colossal mistake"?

Critics say the justice should not judge Trump's election-subversion case, because his wife supported overturning the election, attended Trump's Jan6 rally.

Thursday was a HUGE day in court for Donald Trump. TWO courts, actually. The Supreme Court in DC heard Donald Trumps "TOTAL IMMUNITY FOR LIFE" case and the New York Election Interference (Hush Money/Stormy Daniels) case continued with David Pecker on the stand for day 3. First, the Supreme Court. Some observations: I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose. — George Conway (@gtconway3d) April 25, 2024 These are some of the most extreme, authoritarian arguments presented to the Supreme Court in the modern era.

Lousiana's Governor with what I would also call a self-own here, by defending the Republican bill with a colorful comparison. "I’ll give you a great example, when you go to a restaurant, do you go over there and watch the cook make everything he serves you? No, you just walk into a restaurant, those restaurants you that you think serve a great meal and you order that great meal.

Meet Mike Davis of The Article III Project, a right-wing outfit that backs Mr. Trump’s judicial nominees. Brett Kavanaugh described Davis as a "warrior" on his behalf. Yeah. Now Davis has nothing to do but go on Bannon and make mouth noises regarding fantasies about prosecuting Barack Obama for murder. Video and transcript via Media Matters: MIKE DAVIS (ARTICLE III PROJECT): If the Supreme Court does not rule the right way and protects the presidency and therefore our country, that means the Trump 47 Justice Department can indict President Obama for capital murder, along with now-Judge David Barron on the First Circuit Court of Appeals, who was his legal advisor at the time, for their drone strike — extrajudicial drone strike — on two American citizens, including a minor.

During Thursday's Supreme Court hearing, Trump lawyer John Sauer was made to look foolish trying to defend his claim that the president would get immunity even if he assassinates his political rival. Justice Sotomayor was not amused. Sotomayor: Your answer below, I'm going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it – if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity? Sauer: It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act. Sotomayor: It could.

I’m certain that conservative women will give up the right to vote if it will stop loony leftist women from being able to vote.