Trump: We Should Imprison People For Criticizing Supreme Court
By: John Amato (Crooks and Liars)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
During his rally in Indiana, Pennsylvania on Monday, Trump defended the Supreme Court from verbal criticisms and claimed people should be put in prison for doing so.
Before demented Don talked about arresting people criticizing the Supreme Court, he claimed Vice President Harris wants to pack the Supreme Court with up to 25 justices if elected.
TRUMP: And she wants to pack the Supreme Court, you know that. Instead of nine justices like we have now, Kamala wants to bring it up very substantially. Now, this is a number I heard two days ago, potentially to 25 justices so she can rig the system.
Meaning, not she, the whole party can rig the system, the party of communists. She wants to bring it up to 25. That's the first time I heard that number, but I heard it very loud and clear. She might as well have Congress.
There is no law saying we can only have nine justices on the high court. McConnell and Trump's actions have destroyed the integrity of the court and turned it into a kangaroo institution of the MAGA cult.
TRUMP: No, they were very brave, the Supreme Court, very brave. And they take a lot of hits because of it.
It should be illegal what happens.
You know, you have these guys like playing the ref, like the great Bobby Knight.
These people should be put in jail the way they talk about our judges and our justices, trying to get them to sway their vote, sway their decision.
I won't bother discussing his violation of the First Amendment because our readers understand it, but if you look at Trump's track record of attacking and vilifying judges and their family members, if we use his pronouncement, he should be in prison for life.
Using Trump's logic, the entire Republican Party should be in prison for almost 60 years of vile attacks on the Supreme Court for every decision they hated.
Trump is losing his marbles and fast.
Trump again says six justices--here, "six brilliant justices"-- overturned Roe v. Wade. Without opining on their luminance, it was five. https://t.co/ZDtfK1p3dD
— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) September 24, 2024
Tags
Who is online
489 visitors
He sure wants to throw a lot of people in jail. He must want company.
It gets lonely in that cold, dark cell
I hear it is better if you can pick the person showering next to you...
If it actually would be the case that one could be jailed for being critical of the SCotUS, that would be yet another reason why I'll never step foot in the USA again. Okay, everyone, go ahead and say "who cares?" - you're all forgiven in advance. LOL
Trump is talking out his ass again.
This stuff will not happen in the US, it is silly to think it possible.
Yep.
Of course, if Harris wins and packs the Court, the first amendment may well "evolve" that way.
Packing the Court would be one of the very worst decisions of her life.
The Democratic Party should take a long and hard look at this type of stunt, just like they should look at her idiotic suggestion of suspending the filibuster for one piece of legislation.
I would expect her to do it if she can. Destroying institutions and norms is pretty much the Biden/Harris brand.
I think the megadonors who anointed her as the candidate would be smarter than to allow her to do it.
You have more confidence in her handlers than I do.
Walz was licking the boots of Soros today. I wonder what his boss told him.
Well, I am hoping that they have more intelligence than Harris.
Doesn't even seem like a big ask.
Is that the image of the President of "The Greatest Nation on Earth" you want to be laughed at by the rest of the world?
some things cannot be denied
LOL
Damn, Buzz, are you seriously asking me that after the many times I have clearly stated that I don't want Trump, Biden, or Harris?
Get a clue!
Forgive me Tex, at my advanced old age I do sometimes forget things. My feelings are no different from yours, even if I were qualified to vote in an American election, I wouldn't vote for any of them either.
No problem!!!
I'm pretty sure Trump himself had some choice words for them when the scotus rejected his election suits back in 2020.
I went to school in Indiana, PA. Lived about 20 miles from there during my growing up years.
I hope he didn;t have a huge crowd, but Indiana is maga-land
There is a travelling core of these people, mostly retirees, who travel from rally to rally.
Sad.
Well, I want to travel when I retire...but I want to go to New England and Yellowstone
There is also a micro-economy of vendors selling the standards: Food, Trump themed paraphernalia...
I saw a TV interview where the vendors figured out pretty quickly that the same people were coming repeatedly so they started modifying the t shirts and visors to indicate the place and date of the rally.
Cha ching, he said, right back up to $10,000 in sales for one and a half days, usually netting $6500.00, eclipsing his 9 to 5 job earnings.
I hope they're all close to retirement 'cause the gravy train hopefully will be ending on November 5th.
Seriously, certainly not maga rallies.
Seriously, certainly not maga rallies.
Ah, those vendors are resilient.
They probably started out selling Obama t-shirts, then "I'm With Her" stuff, then MAGA, next up will be something for Kamala.
Never a shortage of fools shelling out bucks for political crapola.
Oh, look honey, that's the day our hero started his terrorize Springfield tour!
Nah, that's when the weirdos start to really buy all of their tactical gear...
After months, if not years, of Trump delivering a continuous barrage of verbal abuse against almost every judge involved in his cases, he now wants to jail people who dare to criticize judges, in particular his hand-picked sycophants on the Supreme Court.
It's enough to make your head spin.
Not only is it rank hypocrisy, it's clear proof that Trump is an enemy of the 1st Amendment.
A dictator on Day One? You bet!
Who is insane enough to support him?
here is no law saying we can only have nine justices on the high court
Yes. There is.
Connell and Trump's actions have destroyed the integrity of the court and turned it into a kangaroo institution of the MAGA cult.
Example 1,000 of why progressive extremists are no different than their caricature of Trump. The Court rules against Trump, "MAGA" and conservatives all the time. But since the far left doesn't win every single case they want, no matter how lacking in merit their argument is, they scream the Court has no integrity and attack it's independence non stop..
A vote for Harris is a vote for destroying the independence of the Court and making it nothing but a partisan tool that serves whoever controls the Presidency and 50 Senate Votes. It means the end of the Constitution.
Fiction:
Fact:
According to the constitution, congress has the responsibility of setting the number of Justices on the supreme court. We've had as few as 6 but since 1869 we've had 9 but that is not a number set in stone.
Nonsense. The complaint about the conservative Justices comes from the fact that EVERY fucking one of them said Roe was "settled law" during their confirmations, and then as soon as the religious conservatives had the majority they pushed forward with any of the Christian conservative challenges to Roe and, as we all know, overturned that "settled law" after injecting their worthless religious beliefs into the law of the land contrary to the constitutions establishment clause. That's what rational Americans with more than half a brain take issue with in regards to the Christian conservatives on the court.
Do you know what a law is?
omplaint about the conservative Justices comes from the fact that EVERY fucking one of them said Roe was "settled law
Lol. Justices don't commit to voting on an issue likely to come before them during confirmation. That would actually be an ethical violation. All they did is recognize that it was precedent, which it was.
Something so obvious it is hard to believe that anyone could overlook that fact.
If the author is willing to blatantly lie about the law, what else is he willing to lie about?
28 U.S. Code § 1 - Number of justices; quorum
The number of justices is determined by congress and can be changed anytime congress wishes and gets enough votes.
So the code (law) listed above is just made up nonsense?
Well, okey-dokey then.
It's a statute, passed by legislation to define the framework of the court, nothing more.
Most of us think in terms about criminal law which always has penalties associated with it.
If there are only 8 Justices available to serve, there is no penalty.
What was once thought to be unassailable by politics is now vulnerable to Senate manipulation like
McConnel stonewalling Obama for a year and Trump packing the Court with two faced Justices who told the
Senate Confirmation Hearings one thing and then proceeded to do the opposite.
How many years the Senate can get away with defying the statute in the future remains to be seen.
As stated previously:
Lol.
The author obviously misspoke. There is no requirement in the U.S. Constitution that there can only be nine justices on the Supreme Court.
Probably a very good thing the author stated this, as it is clearly not a violation of the First Amendment for Trump to speak his opinion.
Seems like the author is having a little credibility problem.
Trump said, pretty specifically, that people who criticize the Supreme Court, at least in a way he doesnt approve of should be put in jail.
It doesnt sound at all ambiguous to me.
First, I read the article, and know what Trump said.
Second, I never said it was ambiguous in any way.
Third, your comment doesn't rebut the fact that the author was not truthful about the First Amendment, as my comment pointed out, accurately.
Trump can SAY whatever dumbfuck stuff he wants and it will not make it a violation of the First Amendment as the author claimed.
Since the author claimed it was a violation, please do point out how it is one, since the author declined.
When the author says Trump is violating the first amendment he is not referring to Trumps own comments, but rather Trump's saying that other people who criticize the court should be in jail, which would violate THEIR first amendment rights.[✘]
[✘] What I stated as that as a private citizen, Trump can say whatever dumbfuck stuff he wants and it IS NOT VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR ANYONE. It is just words, man. It has no power or force or enforcement or law backing it.
Now, if you wish to dispute that with a rebuttal, fire away!
You misunderstand what the author of the article was saying. I cant help you.
No, I do not.
It is the author who doesn't know what the fuck they are yakking about. there is NO violation of any First Amendment because Trump said dumbfuck stuff. That isn't how the Constitution defines freedom of speech.
If you disagree, simply make a logical rebuttal specifically telling me what the violation is.
An ignorant comment.
for the last time, he is saying that Trump's threatened denial of OTHERS 1st amendment rights is the issue.
We are done here.
So anybody thrown in prison is not able to speak their opinion?
I have no idea what you are drawing that conclusion from.
Nm, i misunderstood.
Well, I learned decades ago in school that a citizen can not violate anyone's freedom of speech by saying mean stuff.
Now, if you could actually prove the author's point which you claim to understand perfectly then go for it.
There is and was NO attempt to violate anyone's First Amendment rights, and anyone saying otherwise may merely prove it to convince me.
That's your personal decision.