And yet it sets a precedent if allowed, does it not?
1 Like
Not when it applies only to Trumpâs pardons. When he is out of office, the law doesnât apply to anyone.
Nor did she say it does. She said it sets a precedent which is completely accurate.
1 Like
How can a law be applied to target a small segment of people and then disappear as though it never existed? In order to exist it has to apply to all. Therefore, it sets a precedent.
If NYS can waive double jeopardy for people pardoned by Trump, then âinsert stateâ can waive double jeopardy for people pardoned by the next President.
It sets precedent only if it stands up to a constitutionality test before the SCOTUS. This particular law will never turn on the Democrats and likely will never pass SCOTUS approval as double jeopardy is addressed in the 5th Amendment.
Only if a case is filed and then only if the SCOTUS decides to take it up.
I donât think itâs got a hope in hell in the appellate courts or before the SCOTUS but the SCOTUS decides which cases it will or wonât here. Appealing to the SCOTUS therefore is no guarantee the case will ever be herd.
That being the case it definitely setâs a dangerous precedent that could quickly spread to other states.
Iâm going by what the article claimed.
It doesnât apply to Federal charges, just NYS charges.
PRECEDENT (regarding legal actions)
In common law legal systems, precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.
Passing a law is not setting a precedent. It may be establish a standard, encourage other states to pass copy cat lawsâŚbut legal precedence is set only when the law is challenged in a court of law. True and lasting precedence is set at the SCOTUS level.
This law will never make it.
Does SCOTUS not take into consideration how many copycat laws and standards were set as well as the legal opinions they were based upon?
I donât think this âlawâ will make it either. However, I am rather taken aback by everything America stands for it violates ⌠and get support for.
She didnât say âLegal Precedentâ she said âprecedentâ.
Definition of precedent (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : an earlier occurrence of something similar
2a : something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kinda verdict that had no precedent
b : the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice
3 : a person or thing that serves as a model
When youâre this deep in the hole, itâs best to quit.
But, we all are on the same page.
It wonât stand under scrutiny.
The question is⌠how much will it take to make it to SCOTUS. And, more importantly, why is SCOTUS potentially having to decide matters that shouldnât even be remotely placed on their doorstep?
1 Like
Because democrats have decided that everything is constitutional until the SCOTUS says itâs not and donât care if they have to burn down the country in order to stop Trump and the Republicans next year.
Iâd take it a step further and ask you this:
Do democrats care if it is constitutional if it doesnât coincide with their agenda?
Do they care who is President or who America votes for if it does not coincide with their agenda?
Have they shown that they are willing to subvirt all that the county was built upon in order to advance their agenda?
And when do the no information voters and nutbags become more than 50% of all of those who vote? What then?
No they really donât care as long as itâs something they want. The Constitution is just an impediment to implementation of their agenda.
The Federal Judicary is also so infested with activist leftwing judges they know that they have a good chance of winning in court at least at the district level no matter how out of line their case is with the Constitution.
Itâs starting to appear to me that they are simply using the courts as a way to sow even more division in the country because of so many cases they push knowing they can only survive if put before activists judges even knowing the SCOTUS will overturn them on appeal.
Look at the fight weâve had over Trumps appointments, how hard demâs ran against him in 16 on the premise that his appointees would undo âdecades of progressâ and what a benefit cases like this will be to them in encouraging turnout next year.
Angry activists will take to the streets in 2020 and more importantly theyâll turn out to vote.
People who are mostly content with their lives are less inclined to turn out so this is all to their advantage.
1 Like
One judge, TWR⌠not even elected. Can stop the President of the United States.
Barr is correct. This needs to stop.
1 Like
âŚas you should do. Weâre talking about a law here. Get a fuckinâ grip. You canât be right all the time! 
Weâre talking about a state law that sets precedent since no other state has ever passed anything similar.
Go be an ass elsewhere, you were wrong. Either admit it and move on or just quit and move on.
The bottom line gentlemen ( @asaratis and @TWR) is we are on the same page. The law wonât stand. But, I fear SCOTUS is being used and abused to legislate for the cowards who know better that want to save their skins and for the likes of AOC who donât know their ass from a hole in the ground.
1 Like
It wonât be tested until:
-
President Trump pardons someone that is directly connected to him, that person having also broken a similar law in the State of New York
-
The State of New York files charges in a NYS court.
-
If the State wins in NYS vs. PP (Pardoned Person), it will set precedence at that state court levelâŚuntil it is successfully appealed and reversed at higher state court levels or somehow gets into federal courts.
It will not stand.
Again, you misrepresent what legal precedence means. A law that has been challenged in court and prevailed becomes a legal precedent.
Itâs okay to be wrong once in a while. Anyone that posts 500 times a week should expect it.