Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing. This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse. And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...
Rick Wilson likes to say "Democrats like to bring a soup ladle to a gun fight." I really don't know what the best approach is. I would very much like both sides/ all sides to have high standards and expectations for their leaders and to put country before party, and to remember that the oaths they take are to the Constitution, not to a person or a party. And yet, here we are: One side says, "oh, we really should play by the rules!" -- while the other says "Rules?!? What rules?"
Sticking to the rules and standards is a losing proposition, but in the long run so is abandoning standards and playing dirty. I honestly don't know what the most pragmatic course of action is.
All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.
If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution? If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them? Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested? Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump? He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this. It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.
Correct. People can try and rationalize this by the "official" and "unofficial" verbiage but I think this sets in motion a slippery slope to a president, indeed, being way above the law because you can argue that anything was in his official duty as president.
He hasn't read the Constitution, but if you'll recall he knows that "I have this thing called Article Two," which, he thinks, lets him do whatever he wants. If he says "As President, I am cancelling midterm elections, because our system is rigged and corrupt," he has declared that to be an official act. Now you or I or whoever can bring suit arguing that that was not really an official act, and five years or so after elections were cancelled a judge/ court can decide if that really was an official act. Yay?
@bootleg -- that bolded part is the key. Back in the before times -- during the Obama administration -- Conor Friedersdorf wrote an article in The Atlantic warning about the dangers of executive overreach. He admonished people not to shrug and ignore him just because they thought Obama was a good guy who never would abuse the powers of the presidency. What would happen, he asked, when an unscrupulous and immoral person took office? As luck would have it, we got to find out during the very next administration.
And we're back to the disparity in standards and expectations between the parties. Biden vows not to abuse his powers; the other guy promises that he will do whatever he damn well pleases (and he already was doing that in his first term, note all of the "acting" officials he appointed without Senate confirmation). That's -- good? -- as long as Biden/ a Democrat is re/elected. And yet it sure doesn't feel very good or seem right.
All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.
If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution? If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them? Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested? Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump? He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this. It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.
Correct. People can try and rationalize this by the "official" and "unofficial" verbiage but I think this sets in motion a slippery slope to a president, indeed, being way above the law because you can argue that anything was in his official duty as president.
He hasn't read the Constitution, but if you'll recall he knows that "I have this thing called Article Two," which, he thinks, lets him do whatever he wants. If he says "As President, I am cancelling midterm elections, because our system is rigged and corrupt," he has declared that to be an official act. Now you or I or whoever can bring suit arguing that that was not really an official act, and five years or so after elections were cancelled a judge/ court can decide if that really was an official act. Yay?
@bootleg -- that bolded part is the key. Back in the before times -- during the Obama administration -- Conor Friedersdorf wrote an article in The Atlantic warning about the dangers of executive overreach. He admonished people not to shrug and ignore him just because they thought Obama was a good guy who never would abuse the powers of the presidency. What would happen, he asked, when an unscrupulous and immoral person took office? As luck would have it, we got to find out during the very next administration.
And we're back to the disparity in standards and expectations between the parties. Biden vows not to abuse his powers; the other guy promises that he will do whatever he damn well pleases (and he already was doing that in his first term, note all of the "acting" officials he appointed without Senate confirmation). That's -- good? -- as long as Biden/ a Democrat is re/elected. And yet it sure doesn't feel very good or seem right.
Agreed. I think we are so fucked right now.
To me, this all goes back to people staying home in 2016. 50,000 across three states gave Trump the presidency and the right to swing the Supreme Court further to the right than anyone imagined.
Reading through the majority opinion, the path to prosecution seems to be very much open as long as they narrow the scope. The key to me lies in Trump's requests to Pence to interfere in certification of the elections. In that scenario, Pence is acting as President of the Senate and therefore not involved in any official act for the office of the President and this Trump is interfering with Congress. Of course, they threw a caveat in even that assessment and left it open enough for Trump to slip by.
I'm not optimistic anything happens and if Trump is re-elected, none of it matters based on that little tidbit Robert's dropped at the end about not prosecuting a sitting president.
exactly...tRump wasn't president when he ordered his people to move and hide the documents that he didn't want to give up.
They aren't prosecuting him for having them. If he would have returned them (like everyone else) then no problem.
He also wasn't president when the hush money was paid.
He's still fucked. It's just going to take more time.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Reading through the majority opinion, the path to prosecution seems to be very much open as long as they narrow the scope. The key to me lies in Trump's requests to Pence to interfere in certification of the elections. In that scenario, Pence is acting as President of the Senate and therefore not involved in any official act for the office of the President and this Trump is interfering with Congress. Of course, they threw a caveat in even that assessment and left it open enough for Trump to slip by.
I'm not optimistic anything happens and if Trump is re-elected, none of it matters based on that little tidbit Robert's dropped at the end about not prosecuting a sitting president.
exactly...tRump wasn't president when he ordered his people to move and hide the documents that he didn't want to give up.
They aren't prosecuting him for having them. If he would have returned them (like everyone else) then no problem.
He also wasn't president when the hush money was paid.
He's still fucked. It's just going to take more time.
CNN yesterday: "[DJT]'s lgal team has filed a letter seeking to challenge his hush money conviction based on the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity."
In other words, he thinks, and his team is arguing, that the immunity extends to things he did before becoming president.
I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am running for President; please vote for me, and, also, I'll need immunity if I lose my sh!t and pummel the next person who annoys me.
All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.
Reading through the majority opinion, the path to prosecution seems to be very much open as long as they narrow the scope. The key to me lies in Trump's requests to Pence to interfere in certification of the elections. In that scenario, Pence is acting as President of the Senate and therefore not involved in any official act for the office of the President and this Trump is interfering with Congress. Of course, they threw a caveat in even that assessment and left it open enough for Trump to slip by.
I'm not optimistic anything happens and if Trump is re-elected, none of it matters based on that little tidbit Robert's dropped at the end about not prosecuting a sitting president.
exactly...tRump wasn't president when he ordered his people to move and hide the documents that he didn't want to give up.
They aren't prosecuting him for having them. If he would have returned them (like everyone else) then no problem.
He also wasn't president when the hush money was paid.
He's still fucked. It's just going to take more time.
CNN yesterday: "[DJT]'s lgal team has filed a letter seeking to challenge his hush money conviction based on the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity."
In other words, he thinks, and his team is arguing, that the immunity extends to things he did before becoming president.
I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am running for President; please vote for me, and, also, I'll need immunity if I lose my sh!t and pummel the next person who annoys me.
They are only challenging some of the evidence that was presented that was from when he was president. Tweets or something....I don't think it will fly.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Reading through the majority opinion, the path to prosecution seems to be very much open as long as they narrow the scope. The key to me lies in Trump's requests to Pence to interfere in certification of the elections. In that scenario, Pence is acting as President of the Senate and therefore not involved in any official act for the office of the President and this Trump is interfering with Congress. Of course, they threw a caveat in even that assessment and left it open enough for Trump to slip by.
I'm not optimistic anything happens and if Trump is re-elected, none of it matters based on that little tidbit Robert's dropped at the end about not prosecuting a sitting president.
exactly...tRump wasn't president when he ordered his people to move and hide the documents that he didn't want to give up.
They aren't prosecuting him for having them. If he would have returned them (like everyone else) then no problem.
He also wasn't president when the hush money was paid.
He's still fucked. It's just going to take more time.
CNN yesterday: "[DJT]'s lgal team has filed a letter seeking to challenge his hush money conviction based on the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity."
In other words, he thinks, and his team is arguing, that the immunity extends to things he did before becoming president.
I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am running for President; please vote for me, and, also, I'll need immunity if I lose my sh!t and pummel the next person who annoys me.
They are only challenging some of the evidence that was presented that was from when he was president. Tweets or something....I don't think it will fly.
Grifters gotta grift. Such a sleazy con man and slime ball attorneys. The epitome of a complete huckster and fraud and 70+ million still want to vote for him. Fuck you America.
Reading through the majority opinion, the path to prosecution seems to be very much open as long as they narrow the scope. The key to me lies in Trump's requests to Pence to interfere in certification of the elections. In that scenario, Pence is acting as President of the Senate and therefore not involved in any official act for the office of the President and this Trump is interfering with Congress. Of course, they threw a caveat in even that assessment and left it open enough for Trump to slip by.
I'm not optimistic anything happens and if Trump is re-elected, none of it matters based on that little tidbit Robert's dropped at the end about not prosecuting a sitting president.
exactly...tRump wasn't president when he ordered his people to move and hide the documents that he didn't want to give up.
They aren't prosecuting him for having them. If he would have returned them (like everyone else) then no problem.
He also wasn't president when the hush money was paid.
He's still fucked. It's just going to take more time.
CNN yesterday: "[DJT]'s lgal team has filed a letter seeking to challenge his hush money conviction based on the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity."
In other words, he thinks, and his team is arguing, that the immunity extends to things he did before becoming president.
I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am running for President; please vote for me, and, also, I'll need immunity if I lose my sh!t and pummel the next person who annoys me.
They are only challenging some of the evidence that was presented that was from when he was president. Tweets or something....I don't think it will fly.
Yeah this particular example may not fly. But this decision muddies the waters and opens the door to, seemingly, an endless stream of challenges and hearings to determine what is and what is not an official act...kind of think that was ultimately what Trump's lawyers were looking for.
Running for president is not the same as being president.
Statements aren't acts. Acts are acts.
After digesting all of that and a good night sleep (I’m definitely not a lawyer) I discerned that ALL the election crimes are still on the table. Those soon to be scheduled (mandated by the actual immunity ruling) Tanya Chutkin hearings will be everything the select committee’s hearings were, but with real consequence. I’m sure that Jack Smith’s team was still working on what was going to happen worst case scenario during this delay. All of that info and TESTIMONY is going be reported on. combine that with the 23% of the population support that Trizzy has? I’m SURE everything is going be fine...
He gonna get stomped and then he going to federal prison.
I can’t help but think Sotomayor must be an idiot if she thinks ordering assignations of your political opponents and taking bribes are promote official business of the president. Stating those scenarios as if they are now protected is just plain stupid and trying to scare everyone into election season.
You should read the majority opinion and Barrett's partial concur and then maybe it will make more sense to you. Barrett specifically states that she disagrees with some of the opinion and gives the example of how bribery would not be punishable.
Amy Coney Barrett wrote: "Take the President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection."
Right, this is the act of the candidate. That's different than Pence's role in the certification which is an official duty of the VP, the executive branch. The one counter is whether he is acting as the president of the senate and therefore part of the legislative at that moment.
Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing. This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse. And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...
I'm not freaking out, but I also think this is one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and is a continuation of the Judiciary branch expanding their power and now also giving the Executive Branch immunity in almost all instances.
It's seems common sense to me that SCOTUS should have actually taken the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to mean that the founders did not desire to have a President immune from criminal acts having just fought a war against the British where they were ruled by a King who was unbound by laws. I don't get how that makes sense to anyone with a brain. The argument should have started with the premise that Presidents are not immune and that the petitioner would need to provide the Constitutional support to prove otherwise, but these fucks just rolled over and said, do whatever you want as long as you deem it official and even if it's not, kick it to us and we will decide what we think. This court thinks too highly of itself.
I think people also need to understand that an aging Alito and Thomas would like to retire and they surely won't step down if Biden is re-elected so they need Trump to win so he can nominate the youngest possible conservative justices ever and solidify the ultra conservative stranglehold on the court for the next 30 years. I used to believe that justices just retired when they felt it was time, but it seems that more than ever, at least since the McConnell bullshit, that our SCOTUS is compromised and is now just as political as anything else in DC, which is why term limits and standards need to be ushered in for the good of the country, not one side or the other. Neither side should have an advantage, but that's what it has become.
Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing. This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse. And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...
I'm not freaking out, but I also think this is one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and is a continuation of the Judiciary branch expanding their power and now also giving the Executive Branch immunity in almost all instances.
It's seems common sense to me that SCOTUS should have actually taken the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to mean that the founders did not desire to have a President immune from criminal acts having just fought a war against the British where they were ruled by a King who was unbound by laws. I don't get how that makes sense to anyone with a brain. The argument should have started with the premise that Presidents are not immune and that the petitioner would need to provide the Constitutional support to prove otherwise, but these fucks just rolled over and said, do whatever you want as long as you deem it official and even if it's not, kick it to us and we will decide what we think. This court thinks too highly of itself.
After reading the comments here and elsewhere, I reached out to a friend of mine who is pretty qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
HIs initial opinion (and he qualifies it with him not having read the specific wording of the ruling) is that he doesn't understand why it is seen as controversial. That he always suspected they would say basically what they said which is a president has immunity for official actions. So he considered this to mostly be against Trump's claims of total immunity as well as simply just setting the stage for what is determined to be an official act and what is not.
So controversy could come from the cases that come out of this, but as of now, nothing controversial.
I'm just getting tired of the whole, if I don't get my way someone should be fired/impeached/etc. And for items to be used for political/campaign gain when it should be about the issue and what was actually said.
Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing. This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse. And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...
I'm not freaking out, but I also think this is one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and is a continuation of the Judiciary branch expanding their power and now also giving the Executive Branch immunity in almost all instances.
It's seems common sense to me that SCOTUS should have actually taken the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to mean that the founders did not desire to have a President immune from criminal acts having just fought a war against the British where they were ruled by a King who was unbound by laws. I don't get how that makes sense to anyone with a brain. The argument should have started with the premise that President's are not immune and that the petitioner would need to provide the Constitutional support to prove otherwise, but these fucks just rolled over and said, do whatever you want as long as you deem it official and even if it's not, kick to us and will decide what we think. This court thinks too highly of itself.
Now correlate this with the Chevron decision, probably the sleeper case of the whole session. The SCOTUS wrestled control of regulatory interpretation away from the regulatory bodies and into the courts. Basically taking the power of interpretation of laws away from the executive branch. I think this is a really big deal, good and bad.
It always fascinates me that the whole concept of accepting these SCOTUS decisions is based on Marbury v Madison. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the SCOTUS the final say on anything. It's co-equal. So at some point, some president is going to say "fuck you, I'm ignoring your ruling". Then what?
Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing. This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse. And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...
I'm not freaking out, but I also think this is one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and is a continuation of the Judiciary branch expanding their power and now also giving the Executive Branch immunity in almost all instances.
It's seems common sense to me that SCOTUS should have actually taken the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to mean that the founders did not desire to have a President immune from criminal acts having just fought a war against the British where they were ruled by a King who was unbound by laws. I don't get how that makes sense to anyone with a brain. The argument should have started with the premise that Presidents are not immune and that the petitioner would need to provide the Constitutional support to prove otherwise, but these fucks just rolled over and said, do whatever you want as long as you deem it official and even if it's not, kick it to us and we will decide what we think. This court thinks too highly of itself.
After reading the comments here and elsewhere, I reached out to a friend of mine who is pretty qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
HIs initial opinion (and he qualifies it with him not having read the specific wording of the ruling) is that he doesn't understand why it is seen as controversial. That he always suspected they would say basically what they said which is a president has immunity for official actions. So he considered this to mostly be against Trump's claims of total immunity as well as simply just setting the stage for what is determined to be an official act and what is not.
So controversy could come from the cases that come out of this, but as of now, nothing controversial.
I'm just getting tired of the whole, if I don't get my way someone should be fired/impeached/etc. And for items to be used for political/campaign gain when it should be about the issue and what was actually said.
Your friend seems to be grossly underestimating the biggest issue.
Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing. This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse. And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...
I'm not freaking out, but I also think this is one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and is a continuation of the Judiciary branch expanding their power and now also giving the Executive Branch immunity in almost all instances.
It's seems common sense to me that SCOTUS should have actually taken the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to mean that the founders did not desire to have a President immune from criminal acts having just fought a war against the British where they were ruled by a King who was unbound by laws. I don't get how that makes sense to anyone with a brain. The argument should have started with the premise that Presidents are not immune and that the petitioner would need to provide the Constitutional support to prove otherwise, but these fucks just rolled over and said, do whatever you want as long as you deem it official and even if it's not, kick it to us and we will decide what we think. This court thinks too highly of itself.
After reading the comments here and elsewhere, I reached out to a friend of mine who is pretty qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
HIs initial opinion (and he qualifies it with him not having read the specific wording of the ruling) is that he doesn't understand why it is seen as controversial. That he always suspected they would say basically what they said which is a president has immunity for official actions. So he considered this to mostly be against Trump's claims of total immunity as well as simply just setting the stage for what is determined to be an official act and what is not.
So controversy could come from the cases that come out of this, but as of now, nothing controversial.
I'm just getting tired of the whole, if I don't get my way someone should be fired/impeached/etc. And for items to be used for political/campaign gain when it should be about the issue and what was actually said.
Your friend seems to be grossly underestimating the biggest issue.
Hahaha just not a knee jerk reaction. And that was my point.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.
Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing. This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse. And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...
I'm not freaking out, but I also think this is one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and is a continuation of the Judiciary branch expanding their power and now also giving the Executive Branch immunity in almost all instances.
It's seems common sense to me that SCOTUS should have actually taken the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to mean that the founders did not desire to have a President immune from criminal acts having just fought a war against the British where they were ruled by a King who was unbound by laws. I don't get how that makes sense to anyone with a brain. The argument should have started with the premise that Presidents are not immune and that the petitioner would need to provide the Constitutional support to prove otherwise, but these fucks just rolled over and said, do whatever you want as long as you deem it official and even if it's not, kick it to us and we will decide what we think. This court thinks too highly of itself.
After reading the comments here and elsewhere, I reached out to a friend of mine who is pretty qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
HIs initial opinion (and he qualifies it with him not having read the specific wording of the ruling) is that he doesn't understand why it is seen as controversial. That he always suspected they would say basically what they said which is a president has immunity for official actions. So he considered this to mostly be against Trump's claims of total immunity as well as simply just setting the stage for what is determined to be an official act and what is not.
So controversy could come from the cases that come out of this, but as of now, nothing controversial.
I'm just getting tired of the whole, if I don't get my way someone should be fired/impeached/etc. And for items to be used for political/campaign gain when it should be about the issue and what was actually said.
Your friend seems to be grossly underestimating the biggest issue.
Hahaha just not a knee jerk reaction. And that was my point.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.
And it is now very clear to imagine Trump or, god forbid, someone worse committing what used to be an illegal act but arguing he can do it because he deemed it an official act of his presidency. I don't think this should be minimized.
Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing. This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse. And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...
I'm not freaking out, but I also think this is one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and is a continuation of the Judiciary branch expanding their power and now also giving the Executive Branch immunity in almost all instances.
It's seems common sense to me that SCOTUS should have actually taken the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to mean that the founders did not desire to have a President immune from criminal acts having just fought a war against the British where they were ruled by a King who was unbound by laws. I don't get how that makes sense to anyone with a brain. The argument should have started with the premise that Presidents are not immune and that the petitioner would need to provide the Constitutional support to prove otherwise, but these fucks just rolled over and said, do whatever you want as long as you deem it official and even if it's not, kick it to us and we will decide what we think. This court thinks too highly of itself.
After reading the comments here and elsewhere, I reached out to a friend of mine who is pretty qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
HIs initial opinion (and he qualifies it with him not having read the specific wording of the ruling) is that he doesn't understand why it is seen as controversial. That he always suspected they would say basically what they said which is a president has immunity for official actions. So he considered this to mostly be against Trump's claims of total immunity as well as simply just setting the stage for what is determined to be an official act and what is not.
So controversy could come from the cases that come out of this, but as of now, nothing controversial.
I'm just getting tired of the whole, if I don't get my way someone should be fired/impeached/etc. And for items to be used for political/campaign gain when it should be about the issue and what was actually said.
Your friend seems to be grossly underestimating the biggest issue.
Hahaha just not a knee jerk reaction. And that was my point.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.
And it is now very clear to imagine Trump or, god forbid, someone worse committing what used to be an illegal act but arguing he can do it because he deemed it an official act of his presidency. I don't think this should be minimized.
The Art of the Crime....the decision is a blueprint on how to get away with criminal actions as President. I had never assumed that intentional criminal acts would be immune, but if a difficult decision was made that was borderline and done for "national security", sure understandable. What the court did was tell this dope he just needed to make everything official. He obviously hadn't thought of this nor had his legal team, but now instead of not guilty for the plea, it's changed to everything was an official act. Yeah, sure buddy.
Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing. This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse. And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...
I'm not freaking out, but I also think this is one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and is a continuation of the Judiciary branch expanding their power and now also giving the Executive Branch immunity in almost all instances.
It's seems common sense to me that SCOTUS should have actually taken the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to mean that the founders did not desire to have a President immune from criminal acts having just fought a war against the British where they were ruled by a King who was unbound by laws. I don't get how that makes sense to anyone with a brain. The argument should have started with the premise that Presidents are not immune and that the petitioner would need to provide the Constitutional support to prove otherwise, but these fucks just rolled over and said, do whatever you want as long as you deem it official and even if it's not, kick it to us and we will decide what we think. This court thinks too highly of itself.
After reading the comments here and elsewhere, I reached out to a friend of mine who is pretty qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
HIs initial opinion (and he qualifies it with him not having read the specific wording of the ruling) is that he doesn't understand why it is seen as controversial. That he always suspected they would say basically what they said which is a president has immunity for official actions. So he considered this to mostly be against Trump's claims of total immunity as well as simply just setting the stage for what is determined to be an official act and what is not.
So controversy could come from the cases that come out of this, but as of now, nothing controversial.
I'm just getting tired of the whole, if I don't get my way someone should be fired/impeached/etc. And for items to be used for political/campaign gain when it should be about the issue and what was actually said.
Your friend seems to be grossly underestimating the biggest issue.
Hahaha just not a knee jerk reaction. And that was my point.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.
And it is now very clear to imagine Trump or, god forbid, someone worse committing what used to be an illegal act but arguing he can do it because he deemed it an official act of his presidency. I don't think this should be minimized.
Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing. This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse. And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...
I'm not freaking out, but I also think this is one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and is a continuation of the Judiciary branch expanding their power and now also giving the Executive Branch immunity in almost all instances.
It's seems common sense to me that SCOTUS should have actually taken the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to mean that the founders did not desire to have a President immune from criminal acts having just fought a war against the British where they were ruled by a King who was unbound by laws. I don't get how that makes sense to anyone with a brain. The argument should have started with the premise that Presidents are not immune and that the petitioner would need to provide the Constitutional support to prove otherwise, but these fucks just rolled over and said, do whatever you want as long as you deem it official and even if it's not, kick it to us and we will decide what we think. This court thinks too highly of itself.
After reading the comments here and elsewhere, I reached out to a friend of mine who is pretty qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
HIs initial opinion (and he qualifies it with him not having read the specific wording of the ruling) is that he doesn't understand why it is seen as controversial. That he always suspected they would say basically what they said which is a president has immunity for official actions. So he considered this to mostly be against Trump's claims of total immunity as well as simply just setting the stage for what is determined to be an official act and what is not.
So controversy could come from the cases that come out of this, but as of now, nothing controversial.
I'm just getting tired of the whole, if I don't get my way someone should be fired/impeached/etc. And for items to be used for political/campaign gain when it should be about the issue and what was actually said.
Your friend seems to be grossly underestimating the biggest issue.
Hahaha just not a knee jerk reaction. And that was my point.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.
And it is now very clear to imagine Trump or, god forbid, someone worse committing what used to be an illegal act but arguing he can do it because he deemed it an official act of his presidency. I don't think this should be minimized.
but the COURTS make that final decision on what is official vs unofficial. people are acting like this gives any prez the ability to just declare something an official act and do whatever they want.
Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing. This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse. And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...
I'm not freaking out, but I also think this is one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and is a continuation of the Judiciary branch expanding their power and now also giving the Executive Branch immunity in almost all instances.
It's seems common sense to me that SCOTUS should have actually taken the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to mean that the founders did not desire to have a President immune from criminal acts having just fought a war against the British where they were ruled by a King who was unbound by laws. I don't get how that makes sense to anyone with a brain. The argument should have started with the premise that Presidents are not immune and that the petitioner would need to provide the Constitutional support to prove otherwise, but these fucks just rolled over and said, do whatever you want as long as you deem it official and even if it's not, kick it to us and we will decide what we think. This court thinks too highly of itself.
After reading the comments here and elsewhere, I reached out to a friend of mine who is pretty qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
HIs initial opinion (and he qualifies it with him not having read the specific wording of the ruling) is that he doesn't understand why it is seen as controversial. That he always suspected they would say basically what they said which is a president has immunity for official actions. So he considered this to mostly be against Trump's claims of total immunity as well as simply just setting the stage for what is determined to be an official act and what is not.
So controversy could come from the cases that come out of this, but as of now, nothing controversial.
I'm just getting tired of the whole, if I don't get my way someone should be fired/impeached/etc. And for items to be used for political/campaign gain when it should be about the issue and what was actually said.
Your friend seems to be grossly underestimating the biggest issue.
Hahaha just not a knee jerk reaction. And that was my point.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.
And it is now very clear to imagine Trump or, god forbid, someone worse committing what used to be an illegal act but arguing he can do it because he deemed it an official act of his presidency. I don't think this should be minimized.
Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing. This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse. And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...
I'm not freaking out, but I also think this is one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and is a continuation of the Judiciary branch expanding their power and now also giving the Executive Branch immunity in almost all instances.
It's seems common sense to me that SCOTUS should have actually taken the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to mean that the founders did not desire to have a President immune from criminal acts having just fought a war against the British where they were ruled by a King who was unbound by laws. I don't get how that makes sense to anyone with a brain. The argument should have started with the premise that Presidents are not immune and that the petitioner would need to provide the Constitutional support to prove otherwise, but these fucks just rolled over and said, do whatever you want as long as you deem it official and even if it's not, kick it to us and we will decide what we think. This court thinks too highly of itself.
After reading the comments here and elsewhere, I reached out to a friend of mine who is pretty qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
HIs initial opinion (and he qualifies it with him not having read the specific wording of the ruling) is that he doesn't understand why it is seen as controversial. That he always suspected they would say basically what they said which is a president has immunity for official actions. So he considered this to mostly be against Trump's claims of total immunity as well as simply just setting the stage for what is determined to be an official act and what is not.
So controversy could come from the cases that come out of this, but as of now, nothing controversial.
I'm just getting tired of the whole, if I don't get my way someone should be fired/impeached/etc. And for items to be used for political/campaign gain when it should be about the issue and what was actually said.
Your friend seems to be grossly underestimating the biggest issue.
Hahaha just not a knee jerk reaction. And that was my point.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.
And it is now very clear to imagine Trump or, god forbid, someone worse committing what used to be an illegal act but arguing he can do it because he deemed it an official act of his presidency. I don't think this should be minimized.
but the COURTS make that final decision on what is official vs unofficial. people are acting like this gives any prez the ability to just declare something an official act and do whatever they want.
Official/Unofficial...none of this was even an issue until this Absolute Immunity bullshit appeared from his legal team. lol.
Go back 6 months. Everyone thought it was complete nonsense (it is) and a waste of time and yet another measure to just delay the inevitable....but low and behold, it's actually given him a potential out. There's now a chance the whole case gets tossed.
And, Hugh, the COURTS are currently stacked in his favor and will be even more so if he wins in November. Lol.
Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing. This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse. And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...
I'm not freaking out, but I also think this is one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and is a continuation of the Judiciary branch expanding their power and now also giving the Executive Branch immunity in almost all instances.
It's seems common sense to me that SCOTUS should have actually taken the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to mean that the founders did not desire to have a President immune from criminal acts having just fought a war against the British where they were ruled by a King who was unbound by laws. I don't get how that makes sense to anyone with a brain. The argument should have started with the premise that Presidents are not immune and that the petitioner would need to provide the Constitutional support to prove otherwise, but these fucks just rolled over and said, do whatever you want as long as you deem it official and even if it's not, kick it to us and we will decide what we think. This court thinks too highly of itself.
After reading the comments here and elsewhere, I reached out to a friend of mine who is pretty qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
HIs initial opinion (and he qualifies it with him not having read the specific wording of the ruling) is that he doesn't understand why it is seen as controversial. That he always suspected they would say basically what they said which is a president has immunity for official actions. So he considered this to mostly be against Trump's claims of total immunity as well as simply just setting the stage for what is determined to be an official act and what is not.
So controversy could come from the cases that come out of this, but as of now, nothing controversial.
I'm just getting tired of the whole, if I don't get my way someone should be fired/impeached/etc. And for items to be used for political/campaign gain when it should be about the issue and what was actually said.
Your friend seems to be grossly underestimating the biggest issue.
Hahaha just not a knee jerk reaction. And that was my point.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.
And it is now very clear to imagine Trump or, god forbid, someone worse committing what used to be an illegal act but arguing he can do it because he deemed it an official act of his presidency. I don't think this should be minimized.
but the COURTS make that final decision on what is official vs unofficial. people are acting like this gives any prez the ability to just declare something an official act and do whatever they want.
Ah yes, the courts that seem to be getting more and more power hungry and saying, just send it to us. So every time something needs to be determined whether official or not, it goes to the SCOTUS? What constitutional grounds will they use to determine what is and isn't an official act? They provided nothing, but an open book on how to subvert the criminal justice system as President. That isn't how this should work. The Court is positioning itself to be the tip of the spear instead of providing guidance for the rule of law.
Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing. This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse. And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...
I'm not freaking out, but I also think this is one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and is a continuation of the Judiciary branch expanding their power and now also giving the Executive Branch immunity in almost all instances.
It's seems common sense to me that SCOTUS should have actually taken the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to mean that the founders did not desire to have a President immune from criminal acts having just fought a war against the British where they were ruled by a King who was unbound by laws. I don't get how that makes sense to anyone with a brain. The argument should have started with the premise that Presidents are not immune and that the petitioner would need to provide the Constitutional support to prove otherwise, but these fucks just rolled over and said, do whatever you want as long as you deem it official and even if it's not, kick it to us and we will decide what we think. This court thinks too highly of itself.
After reading the comments here and elsewhere, I reached out to a friend of mine who is pretty qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
HIs initial opinion (and he qualifies it with him not having read the specific wording of the ruling) is that he doesn't understand why it is seen as controversial. That he always suspected they would say basically what they said which is a president has immunity for official actions. So he considered this to mostly be against Trump's claims of total immunity as well as simply just setting the stage for what is determined to be an official act and what is not.
So controversy could come from the cases that come out of this, but as of now, nothing controversial.
I'm just getting tired of the whole, if I don't get my way someone should be fired/impeached/etc. And for items to be used for political/campaign gain when it should be about the issue and what was actually said.
Your friend seems to be grossly underestimating the biggest issue.
Hahaha just not a knee jerk reaction. And that was my point.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.
And it is now very clear to imagine Trump or, god forbid, someone worse committing what used to be an illegal act but arguing he can do it because he deemed it an official act of his presidency. I don't think this should be minimized.
but the COURTS make that final decision on what is official vs unofficial. people are acting like this gives any prez the ability to just declare something an official act and do whatever they want.
It’s the act itself, along with the time involved in seeking court decisions and the fact that a POTUS can stack the federal judiciary. Imagine loose cannon getting a case to determine “official act” or not. Now imagine a POTUS with an executive branch filled to the gills with “yes” people whereas at every juncture of the decision/approval process the answer is “yes, you can do that, it’s an official act.” The courts are overwhelmed and by the time a verdict is in, it’s way too late.
If anyone thinks that POOTWH, SteveO, Roger Dodger Stoned, Herr Miller, et al won’t take this and run, they weren’t alive from 1/20/2017 to 1/20/2021.
We’re witnessing a slow motion coup. And we were told that it couldn’t happen here.
Comments
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
To me, this all goes back to people staying home in 2016. 50,000 across three states gave Trump the presidency and the right to swing the Supreme Court further to the right than anyone imagined.
They aren't prosecuting him for having them. If he would have returned them (like everyone else) then no problem.
He also wasn't president when the hush money was paid.
He's still fucked. It's just going to take more time.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Statements aren't acts. Acts are acts.
After digesting all of that and a good night sleep (I’m definitely not a lawyer) I discerned that ALL the election crimes are still on the table. Those soon to be scheduled (mandated by the actual immunity ruling) Tanya Chutkin hearings will be everything the select committee’s hearings were, but with real consequence. I’m sure that Jack Smith’s team was still working on what was going to happen worst case scenario during this delay. All of that info and TESTIMONY is going be reported on. combine that with the 23% of the population support that Trizzy has? I’m SURE everything is going be fine...
711 looms. Marchon is going to throw the fucking book at him.
i say this one, grabbed by a corner and flung overhand from about 8 feet right at his fucking face.
I'm afraid you're wrong about that. 7/11 is being pushed out as I type this.
It's seems common sense to me that SCOTUS should have actually taken the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to mean that the founders did not desire to have a President immune from criminal acts having just fought a war against the British where they were ruled by a King who was unbound by laws. I don't get how that makes sense to anyone with a brain. The argument should have started with the premise that Presidents are not immune and that the petitioner would need to provide the Constitutional support to prove otherwise, but these fucks just rolled over and said, do whatever you want as long as you deem it official and even if it's not, kick it to us and we will decide what we think. This court thinks too highly of itself.
Yeah, this ruling is no big deal.
Democrats are over blowing this.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/politics/trump-sentencing-date-delay-proposal/index.html
HIs initial opinion (and he qualifies it with him not having read the specific wording of the ruling) is that he doesn't understand why it is seen as controversial. That he always suspected they would say basically what they said which is a president has immunity for official actions. So he considered this to mostly be against Trump's claims of total immunity as well as simply just setting the stage for what is determined to be an official act and what is not.
So controversy could come from the cases that come out of this, but as of now, nothing controversial.
I'm just getting tired of the whole, if I don't get my way someone should be fired/impeached/etc. And for items to be used for political/campaign gain when it should be about the issue and what was actually said.
It always fascinates me that the whole concept of accepting these SCOTUS decisions is based on Marbury v Madison. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the SCOTUS the final say on anything. It's co-equal. So at some point, some president is going to say "fuck you, I'm ignoring your ruling". Then what?
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.
www.headstonesband.com
Go back 6 months. Everyone thought it was complete nonsense (it is) and a waste of time and yet another measure to just delay the inevitable....but low and behold, it's actually given him a potential out. There's now a chance the whole case gets tossed.
And, Hugh, the COURTS are currently stacked in his favor and will be even more so if he wins in November. Lol.
You trust this Supreme Court? I used to....
If anyone thinks that POOTWH, SteveO, Roger Dodger Stoned, Herr Miller, et al won’t take this and run, they weren’t alive from 1/20/2017 to 1/20/2021.
We’re witnessing a slow motion coup. And we were told that it couldn’t happen here.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©