An audio feed of oral arguments is live-streamed on the Court’s website, and the Court posts the audio later in the day. On the afternoon of each argument, the Court posts transcripts of that day’s arguments.
Best sources of live blogging that I have found.
Kate Riga at TPM – Live Blogging
Seems like SCOTUSblog should be live blogging but I don’t see it.
An audio feed of oral arguments is live-streamed on the Court’s website, and the Court posts the audiolater in the day. On the afternoon of each argument, the Court posts transcripts of that day’s arguments.
Open thread.
Trump’s NY Criminal Trial, Day 7
NotMax
Just in case, also too, live feed at Meidas Touch.
WaterGirl
FYI: I have a post for the NY Trump trial and another post for the Supreme Court Immunity oral arguments
I think I have all the links in the correct posts, but it is a bit mind-boggling to be going back and forth, creating two similar (but very different!) posts at the same time, so let me know if any of the links are wrong.
edit: I like the Washington Post feed because they put the names of the people who are currently speaking up on the screen. I find that helpful. I know the 4 female voices, but not all of the male justices.
Possibly because my brain is usually seething when they speak, which may interfere with my ability to discern which male is speaking at times.
WaterGirl
Oh no, it’s the scratchy voice guy. Of course it is. His voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.
TBone
Sounds like RFK, Jr. is making the argument for Dotard.
TBone
PT has entered the hospital room and the sound on TV is now off. Dang it.
Melancholy Jaques
Every time one of these major cases comes before the Supreme Court, I’m filled with rage at everyone who did not vote for Al Gore.
TBone
@NotMax: 👍
Mousebumples
Thanks for these threads, WaterGirl. I’m at work so can’t listen, but I appreciate the synopsis of updates for both after the fact. 😊
WaterGirl
I think I’m going with Kate Riga at TPM for live blogging, rather than listening to the audio at the Supreme Court. I just want to punch the attorney, and that’s not helpful. Sotomayor’s voice and comments soothe me, but they he just starts spouting his bullshit and lies again.
Sure Lurkalot
The very fact that they chose to hear this claim is fucking infuriating. The bogus supposition was asked and very well answered almost 3 months ago. Someone doesn’t want his wife’s complicity outed in the insurrection trial and maybe others’ complicity as well. The more delay, the more the powers that be can spin 1/6 as a no big deal public protest like the ones on college campuses. Same thing, both sides yada yada yada.
Leto
@WaterGirl:
Are you sure? Maybe we can try it this once, see how it feels/goes? Play it by fist?
WaterGirl
@Leto: I have never punched anyone, every. But geez, after listening to the SC arguments yesterday and now this guy again today, it’s just too much.
Much as I feel like I want to punch him, someone else will need to do the punching. Are you volunteering?
(Also, did you get my email yesterday?)
laura
Sotomayor has NFLTG and Alito remains a Shite-bag of the 1st order as the attorney for that guy dances away from the facts at hand at every chance. The Virgin King of Keg City continues to be the dimmest of legal lights.
Yutsano
@Leto: One can only prove a hypothesis by rigourous testing. Therefore: we must be ready for punching angles, strength of punch, etc. I’ll try to write the basic parameters as I can.
Also: I require bean juice. Off to fix that tout suite!
TBone
A demand for immunity requires an admission of guilt. An acknowledgement, in other words. A very loud acknowledgement of guilt for criming.
SiubhanDuinne
@WaterGirl:
The scratchy voice, annoying as it is, is likely some kind of physical condition/disability. I’ll give him a pass on that since it’s presumably beyond his control.
But he speaks incredibly fast, almost to the point of talking over the Justices, and that’s something he absolutely could train himself to modify. Maybe it’s just me, but I usually feel nervous around people who talk too fast, like they’re trying to put something over on me. It feels like a form of bullying.
TBone
@laura: 💙
Almost Retired
I know Trump has problems obtaining attorneys, but does he really need to hire an attorney that sounds like a SpongeBob character to argue on his behalf before the SC?
TBone
When is Sauer going to spontaneously combust?
Soprano2
@SiubhanDuinne: I think it’s a regional thing. I went to a workshop where the presenter talked about this. She said that when she gave presentations in the South, people would come up to her and tell her she needed to talk more slowly, why was she talking so fast? When she gave presentations on the Upper East Coast and New England, she said people came up to her and complained about how slowly she was speaking, and told her she should speed it up! I probably talk faster than the average person, but not that fast.
NotMax
@TBone
Sauer’s tap dancing puts Ann Miller’s to shame.
beckya57
I’m fed up with how this is being covered. The claims are not serious, and covering the case as though the claims are the point is a category error. The circuit court thoroughly dismissed them. There was absolutely no need for SCOTUS to take this case. They did so corruptly, to aid TFG’s delay strategy. The tell is the scheduling of the arguments at the very end of the term. They’ll rule against him, but the case won’t go to trial before the election, as planned. See the recent Rolling Stone article about how overjoyed the TFG team was that SCOTUS took the case, and how indifferent they are to the outcome.
CaseyL
The FedSoc justices, and the just-plain-evil Justices, clearly want to find in favor of Trump immunity, but even their corruption and dishonesty might not be equal to a finding that favors Trump without also giving Biden powers they don’t want him to have (other than simply, nakedly saying so).
I therefore think they’ll delay issuing an opinion until after the election: If Biden wins, no Presidential immunity. If Trump wins, a further wait until after he’s inaugurated, and then they’ll announce that Presidents are indeed immune from any charges, civil or criminal, forever, no matter what they did, are doing, or will do in the future.
Almost Retired
Kagan is killing it! Weep and wail you scratchy voiced dumbfuck.
TaMara
I cannot listen. My blood pressure will not allow. I’m going to do some quick gardening and then settle into work. The SC is corrupt and it must be a priority to fix it, first by voting blue, then forcing court reform.
Leto
@WaterGirl:
yes and yes; I responded rather late, but it should be there? :)
@Yutsano: I agree on both points; to the bean juice!
Omnes Omnibus
@CaseyL: The Court must decide all cases it hears during a term before the end of that term.
WaterGirl
@SiubhanDuinne: Yes! He speaks way too quickly, and it seems to me that it’s on purpose. A firehouse of bullshit that comes at you so fast that it’s hard to take it all in and think critically about what was said.
It’s a tactic that I disrespect.
NotMax
Sauer reduced to quoting Robert Bork.
Game over, man.
CaseyL
@Omnes Omnibus:
That is something I should have known and didn’t, so many thanks for pointing it out.
This SCOTUS does what it wants, though, so we’ll see.
WaterGirl
@CaseyL: That is exactly what I have been thinking for months and months.
They’ll decide based on the timing. If the decision comes while Biden in is office, then no immunity. If after, yep, they will give Trump immunity.
It hadn’t occurred to me that then they would do the take-back post Trump.
Seriously, if they give immunity, then isn’t the 2-term limit out the window?
I do not see how the SC can credibly assign immunity like this. Trump could have the Supreme Court justices killed if he doesn’t like how they ruled.
The whole thing is rage-inducing. And scary as hell.
WaterGirl
@TaMara:
Every word.
edit: I had to shorten it a bit, but we have a new rotating tag.
NotMax
Justice Barrett is not buying what Sauer is selling.
WaterGirl
@Omnes Omnibus: I read somewhere that there is no actual requirement to decide a case in the term in which it is heard.
No requirement exists, just custom.
Is that not true, then?
Leto
@TaMara: I bought the bagging attachment for my mower yesterday, and I need to get it installed today. So that’s very high on the list of stuff to do. And more bean juice…
WaterGirl
@NotMax:
Thanks for the laugh.
WaterGirl
@Almost Retired: I need the edited audio. Just the responses of the justices.
CaseyL
@WaterGirl: If they give immunity, everything is out the window. A “President Trump” would be an absolute monarch, with the entire intelligence and military apparatuses at his beck and call.
WeimarGerman
I just rage quit. It was awful and I doubt any media will actually cover the “yes the President can officially order a coup” or “the Framers understood the weakness of only impeaching a sitting President, and no you cant prosecute w.o. impeaching so yes you go scot free if the crimes are uncovered after you leave office.”
Can we please get 13 justices soon!!!
sdhays
@WaterGirl: I believe they will rule this session and they will not rule for Trump.
However, what has become increasingly clear is that the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants because there’s very little practical check on it. Which is a problem.
SiubhanDuinne
@WaterGirl:
Yes. First cousin (or maybe younger sibling) to the infamous Gish Gallop.
ETA: Talking fast is an integral part of the GG, but one can talk fast without necessarily GGing.
NotMax
Oh my. DOJ attorney sounds like Mr. Peepers.
SiubhanDuinne
@NotMax:
I loved Mr. Peepers. Wally Cox!
Quinerly
@NotMax: obviously, not a fan of hers. But she has been right on the mark. She seems to throw Sauer off any game he has.
Martin
My institutional policy brain is listening to this. The claims of ‘this has held for 200+ years’ is not actually relevant. The other way of saying that is that this system has held through 46 individual presidents. In the US 8% of the population are felons, so if Presidents were wholly unexceptional, the system would only have been tested 4 times. If Presidents are in almost any way exceptional, it’s likely it never would have been tested. With a sample size of 46, it’s entirely possible we’ve just been lucky and the system never had to operate. Until today. This is the first test.
Mousebumples
I can’t speak for others (or, specifically, lawyers), but I talk fast – especially when I’m nervous. It’s like a caffeine/speed hypertalk, for me. But if you ask me to repeat myself or slow down, I’ll usually apologize and repeat things. (and try to speak more slowly)
@Soprano2: I’m Midwest, fwiw.
NotMax
@SiubhanDuinne
One season (of four total) available on Tubi.
;)
WaterGirl
@sdhays: A big problem.
WaterGirl
@SiubhanDuinne: Who is Mr. Peepers?
japa21
@WaterGirl: You’ve really had a sheltered life. You’re also very young.
NotMax
@WaterGirl
Wikipedia to the rescue.
;)
Soprano2
@Mousebumples: So am I, SWMO. Some people say I have a Southern accent, but I don’t hear it.
sab
Gorsuch, Kavanagh and Alito are driving me nuts on the oral arguments. What is the point of oral arguments if the counsel you disagree with can’t get three words into a statement without being interrupted. Those three are acting more like advocates than impartial judges.
ETA I am sitting here thinking would you three really being taking the same approach with Bill Clinton as the president at issue.
WaterGirl
@NotMax: Huh. Never heard of that before.
Omnes Omnibus
@sab: There is no real point to oral arguments. Although, a number of experts have said that. while you can’t win your case at oral argument, you can lose it.
kirbster
As I listen to this, I can’t help but believe all of this shit about criminal acts by the president and immunity should have been settled 50 years ago. But no, Nixon resigned and the whole mess was swept under the rug by Gerald Ford’s pardon and all the corrupt people that surrounded that administration.
JPL
@WeimarGerman: I missed a hour cause I had to turn it off for awhile. I had no more fucks to give.
The rule of law is dead.
hueyplong
@kirbster: When you think about how the abortion issue was settled one year before Nixon resigned, it kind of gives one pause as to whether a 1974 “settling” of the immunity issue would have been considered permanent by a Trumpist court.
kirbster
@hueyplong: Good point!
TBone
Preemptively pardoning yourself is also an admission of guilt on its face.
NotMax
Alito is a lost cause.
Oh, and water is wet.
TBone
@NotMax: he should be wearing the same outfit
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6WcO3k-MP9Y
Cuz his gums is flappin’
oldgold
Dreeben: “President has no role in certifying the election, likely on purpose — back when the Constitution was written, presidents could run as may times as they wanted, it makes sense to box them out of the process. So it’s particularly hard to clock his interference in that process as an official act.”
This oral argument is a dog and pony show; nevertheless, it is the best point Dreeben has made.
This case is being remanded to the District Court for more fact finding. Play it again, Sam. (As time Goes By)
TBone
I absolutely adore Justice Ketanji. She makes this almost tolerable. It’s the stupidest hearing we’ve ever had though.
brantl
@SiubhanDuinne:
That’s because it is.
Soprano2
@kirbster: ITA, I think pardoning Nixon was a mistake. That meant we never had to really grapple with what it meant that the president was involved in criminal acts. Well, now we have to grapple with it, there is no choice.
NotMax
@TBone
Show those gams, lady.
:)
TBone
Comment from somewhere else
TBone
@NotMax: I useta have a black suede miniskirt and fishnets in the 80s. Hell on 👠 Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! I actually learned skateboarding in heels (not pumps though).
Sauer would need stilts to reach anything approaching truth, honor, justice, or the American way.
Dorothy A. Winsor
Dear god, I hate Alito.
NotMax
@TBone
Black Canary!
;)
Omnes Omnibus
Rick Hasen’s thoughts about what happened and what’s lilely to happen.
TBone
How is YOU being on this Court fair and independent, Boof? STFU
Juju
@Dorothy A. Winsor: He is a wormy little buggar.
TBone
NotMax: More like Harley Quinn if she were a brunette 🤣
japa21
@Omnes Omnibus:
Hope he’s wrong.
WaterGirl
@Dorothy A. Winsor:
So say we all.
Burnspbesq
Kavanaugh is really being an ass. Kudos to Dreeben for being well prepared to deal with his nonsense.
TBone
How much weight does the fact that ALL lower courts rejected this bullshit carry, I wonder.
NotMax
@WaterGirl
Alito is Scalia minus the charm.
//
TBone
@NotMax: Scalito
Another Scott
@Omnes Omnibus: We’ve known for a long time that this SCOTUS is not going to save us.
We have to save ourselves.
“We are the people we’ve been waiting for!”
Thanks.
Grr…,
Scott.
NotMax
@TBone
Isn’t that a menu item at Taco Bell?
:)
New Deal democrat
@Omnes Omnibus: I agree with Hasen’s take.
And, fwiw, for some reason I have been unable to find even qualified immunity for Presidential actions in the text of the Constitution.
Odd, that.
Gretchen
Why don’t they ever ask if Biden also has these supposed presidential powers? Can he order his rivals assassinated or stage a coup to avoid leaving office or is that just a Trump privilege? They never ask that.
TBone
@NotMax: didn’t know about this, now I do thanks to you!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker:_Folie_%C3%A0_Deux
PS Apocalypse Now Director’s Cut was on last night.
Burnspbesq
Barrett’s questions are actually pretty interesting, but I think I know where she’s going to come out.
TBone
@Burnspbesq: ya think she’s stunting? Me too.
TBone
Justice Ketanji 💙❤️💜
Ruckus
@SiubhanDuinne:
It feels like a form of bullying.
It often is, even if it is unintentional. OTOH some people can/do have a brain that works speech as fast as the thought process. Most of us do not.
Ruckus
@Almost Retired:
He might think that is normal. OTOH that may be the only attorney that will work for SFB. If I were an attorney I wouldn’t. Would you?
Ruckus
@CaseyL:
If the SC does what you say they might, it will end democracy.
Of course that may be their point…..
cmorenc
@Sure Lurkalot:
Even if SCOTUS took the immunity appeal from the DC Circuit rather than wait for later appeals from a trial verdict, they could have expedited the arguments and decision as quickly as they did the 14A insurrectionist ballot access issue. It’s the stark contrast in expediting the latter vs not the former that’s especially infuriating, even aside from whether it was properly timely for them to even have taken the immunity issue pretrial rather than post-verdict.
artem1s
@Burnspbesq:
I think she’s a typical ‘fuck you I got mine’ GQPer. She has her appointment for life, she probably thinks it’s best if she removes the possibility that TIFG may decide to execute the whole court once he’s re-elected…because reasons. I don’t believe for one minute she thinks she owes TIFG anything. And I’d bet she has been given orders to make sure he never gets near the WH again. There are a lot of powerful conservatives and Catholics and Fundegelicals who are done with the MAGAt movement – they want their power back and are tired of the giant orange asshole dangling the fondest wishes in front of their noses just to throw it to the highest bidder or biggest sycophant.
TBone
@NotMax: it should be cuz it has the same effect on my bowels.
PAM Dirac
@New Deal democrat:
I haven’t seen anyone yet bring up why they think the president is so special. It certainly would be a pain in the ass to deal with out of control DAs filing indictments just to harass, but it would be a pain in the ass for cabinet members, Senators, Reps, CEOs, etc. and I can’t see how that would be clearly less disruptive than targeting the president. So do all those people have immunity as well? It seems that only in the fevered dreams of the Federalist Society is the president considered a monarch.
jimmiraybob
@SiubhanDuinne: “infamous Gish Gallop”
Exactly.
piratedan
I do kind of wonder if this would all be resolved by stating the argument that if the Office of President allows you unlimited immunity for your actions does that mean if President Biden can come in here and shoot Justice Thomas dead where he sits that no one could prosecute him?
JoyceH
@artem1s:
I can’t for the life of me find any rational explanation for the actions of the conservative majority on the court. By agreeing to take this case, which was already very clearly and convincingly decided by the lower court, they created the very strong perception that they’re in the bag for Trump – the most incompetent and corrupt leader in our nation’s history. If they wait until the last day to release their ruling, or send it back to a lower court for hearings and fact finding, basically making it impossible for the trial to occur before the election, they will conclusively confirm that perception. But – why? Why would they want that? Why would they want that to be their legacy and their place in history? They must know by now that Trump is very unlikely to be president again.
It’s not that I think they’re good people. They’re mostly corrupt. But they’re corrupt in their own ways. Thomas might be a true Trumpist, his wife certainly is. But I don’t think any of the rest of them are. And they all have pretty high opinions of themselves. So why would they thoroughly befoul themselves on Trump’s behalf? What’s in it for them? We always hear that Roberts is so concerned about the court’s reputation. Does this help?
Ruckus
@PAM Dirac:
The president is the highest office.
It does not award the person holding that office complete immunity.
We just have never had a president of such low human quality as ShitForBrains. Not all have been exceptional but none have been as exceptionally shitty as him.
Ruckus
@piratedan:
Or he could do the world a favor and take out his predecessor.
He does not have to be on 42nd St in NYC when he does it….
Timill
@PAM Dirac: MoCs have immunity for official actions in the form of the Speech and Debate clause, and this would extend that to the executive.
OTOH the fact that there isn’t an equivalent in the Constitution for the executive argues that there shouldn’t be such an extension.
Ruckus
@PAM Dirac:
It seems that only in the fevered dreams of the Federalist Society is the president considered a monarch.
Well it is the federalist society. (They do not deserve capitalization. Or attention – other than by a court.) My point is that depending on who you ask you could be told by someone that THEY ARE A MONARCHY
I am an old and I remember that the rethuglican party has always been this way, have always decided that their way is the ONLY way, that democrats are scum – primarily because democrats do not hold the nations currency as the gold crown for one rethuglican to wear as the ruler of all. We view it as exactly what it is, currency, for all to use as a means of trade of goods and service, not as a deity to be worshiped.
Ruckus
@New Deal democrat:
“Odd, that.”
I believe that you are being sarcastic but in case you aren’t – the point of this country over some/all of the others when this one was formed was that, yes a country needs a leader, because the business of a country can not be done by someone because they had a quill pen and a container of ink. The founders knew that, most anyone with two cells to rub together can see that. But. The office of president could not be the same as the King or Queen, because that methodology only works for the King or Queen and possibly their direct supporters/enablers. Also the King or Queen could screw over the rest of the population and the rest of the population was not all that keen on that. We came up with something different. Some have been trying to revert to the concept of a king or queen ever since. I mean look, England still has a king or queen – a royal family. I believe their work any more is mostly ceremonial, not leadership.
The US has never had that sort of structure, mainly because most of the countries that people came from when this one was founded had monarchies or worse as their form of government. Maybe slightly better than a dictatorship, it still was basically an ownership concept over a leadership one. And yes the UK still has a king/queen concept but now they don’t do the day to day work of running a government.
Another Scott
+1
If Alito writes the opinion I’m expecting to see statements like “For all of Christian history, the ruler has been protected by absolute immunity unless the law specifically says otherwise. All hail the Christian ruler! Remand to trial court to rewrite their ruling taking this into account.”
Maybe, under such reasoning, Biden will be able to arrest the RWNJs on the SCOTUS as being a threat to national security… //??
Grr…,
Scott.
New Deal democrat
@Ruckus: FWIW, yes I was being sarcastic.
Specifically, I was referring to the fact that the GOP 6 use “textualism” when it will advance their agenda, and forget all about it when it won’t.
In this case, it seems clear that they want to create a judicial doctrine granting limited immunity to Presidents, so they will philosophize as Superlegislators to get to their preferred outcome, the lack of textual support be damned.
WaterGirl
@piratedan: The stupid press would report that President Biden was threatening to shoot Clarence Thomas!
Eolirin
@WaterGirl: Biden’s approval ratings would go up.
WaterGirl
@Eolirin: In some circles! :-)
SW
On any conceivable issue count on the Taney Court to make the worst possible choice.
Dorothy A. Winsor
I’m shocked by the Court session today. Maybe I shouldn’t be, but I thought the immunity question was so clear that even Alito, Gorsuch, et al, would do the right thing