Conservative Majority Seems Ready to Limit Election Case Against Trump

[David Lockmiller]

Here's the latest on the New York Times Story today titled : Conservative Majority Seems Ready to Limit Election Case Against Trump

The New York Times story reads in pertinent part:

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that a ruling for Mr. Trump could enhance democratic values.

“A stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully,” he said, adding that the prospect of criminal prosecution would make that less likely.


Immediately after the election, on November 10, 1864, in response to a serenade from his supporters, President Lincoln began his short speech with this observation: "It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence, in great emergencies."

On this point the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and a presidential election occurring in regular course during the rebellion added not a little to the strain. If the loyal people, united, were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided, and partially paralyzed, by a political war among themselves?

But the election was a necessity.

We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election is but human-nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case, must ever recur in similar cases. Human-nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak, and as strong; as silly and as wise; as bad and good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged.

But the election, along with its incidental, and undesirable strife, has done good too. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election, in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility. It shows that, even among candidates of the same party, he who is most devoted to the Union, and most opposed to treason, can receive most of the people's votes. It shows also, to the extent yet known, that we have more men now, than we had when the war began. Gold is good in its place; but living, brave, patriotic men, are better than gold.

[David Lockmiller]

Adam Liptak, the New York Times legal analyst, writes today in a story titled --Conservative Justices Take Argument Over Trump’s Immunity in Unexpected Direction:

[M]embers of the court’s conservative majority treated Mr. Trump’s assertion that he could not face charges that he tried to subvert the 2020 election as a weighty and difficult question. They did so, said Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford, by averting their eyes from Mr. Trump’s conduct.

“What struck me most about the case was the relentless efforts by several of the justices on the conservative side not to focus on, consider or even acknowledge the facts of the actual case in front of them,” she said.

They said as much. “I’m not discussing the particular facts of this case,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said, instead positing an alternate reality in which a grant of immunity “is required for the functioning of a stable democratic society, which is something that we all want.”

[David Lockmiller]

from the thread titled "RE: It’s a Free Country. For How Much Longer?"

But the election was a necessity.

We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election is but human-nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case, must ever recur in similar cases. Human-nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak, and as strong; as silly and as wise; as bad and good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged.

[David Lockmiller]

The New York Times story reads in pertinent part:

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that a ruling for Mr. Trump could enhance democratic values.

“A stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully,” he said, adding that the prospect of criminal prosecution would make that less likely.


Immediately after the election, on November 10, 1864, in response to a serenade from his supporters, President Lincoln began his short speech with this observation:

"It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence, in great emergencies."

[AussieMick]

"adding that the prospect of criminal prosecution would make that less likely."

So .... because an election is needed in a democracy, if the loser not only challenges the result and asserts the winner cheated without any real evidence that's OK.... indeed more than OK because it strengthens democracy?

And it's OK for the loser to encourage, or at least sit back and say nothing, when a mob attacks the seat of Government?

This assumes I've correctly interpreted the above .

[David Lockmiller]

(04-29-2024 02:24 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  "adding that the prospect of criminal prosecution would make that less likely."

So .... because an election is needed in a democracy, if the loser not only challenges the result and asserts the winner cheated without any real evidence that's OK.... indeed more than OK because it strengthens democracy?

And it's OK for the loser to encourage, or at least sit back and say nothing, when a mob attacks the seat of Government?

This assumes I've correctly interpreted the above .

As long as three other Justices of the United States Supreme Court agree with Justices Alito and Thomas by the end of June (term of the Supreme Court), perverted logic will be the law of the land. . . . "Next case!"

[Gene C]

I don't trust the press to accurately report the news as much as I used to.
Too many reporters will deliberately misquote, take statements out of context and tell you what they think the speaker meant to say, not what they actually said.

And you can quote me on that -

[David Lockmiller]

(04-30-2024 11:13 AM)Gene C Wrote:  I don't trust the press to accurately report the news as much as I used to.
Too many reporters will deliberately misquote, take statements out of context and tell you what they think the speaker meant to say, not what they actually said.

And you can quote me on that -

Here are Justice Alito’s actual words according to U. S. Supreme Court’s transcript of the hearing (at pages 110 – 112):

JUSTICE ALITO: All right. Let me end -- end with just a question about what is required for the functioning of a stable democratic society, which is something that we all want. I'm sure you would agree with me that a stable democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully if that candidate is -- is the incumbent.

MR. DREEBEN: Of course.

JUSTICE ALITO: All right. Now, if a -- an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail.

MR. DREEBEN: So, I think it's exactly the opposite, Justice Alito. There are lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election. And outside the record but I think of public knowledge, Petitioner and his allies filed dozens of electoral challenges and, in my understanding, has lost all but one that was not outcome determinative in any respect. There were judges that -- that said, in order to sustain substantial claims of fraud that would overturn an election result that's certified by a state, you need evidence, you need proof. And none of those things were manifested. So, there is an appropriate way to challenge things through the courts with evidence. If you lose, you accept the results. That has been the nation's experience. I think the Court is well familiar with that.
(emphasis added)

JUSTICE ALITO: All right. Thank you.

[Gene C]

Thanks David.

You got my quote exactly as I wrote it, and in the proper context with which I intended.
You get a A+ in Journalism 101 from me. And a smiley face