SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)
Options
Comments
-
He still has to pay E. Jean Carroll, and the NY FRAUD penalty.
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.Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180 -
Format: HardcoverLanguage: EnglishISBN: 173550372XISBN13: 9781735503721Length: 320 PagesWeight: 3.17 lbs.Dimensions: 1.2" x 12.0" x 10.6"Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180
-
ikiT said:He still has to pay E. Jean Carroll, and the NY FRAUD penalty.
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.
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.0 -
mace1229 said: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.It's a hopeless situation...0
-
HughFreakingDillon said: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."0
-
cincybearcat 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...
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.Post edited by tbergs onIt's a hopeless situation...0 -
And so it begins.
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.html0 -
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.It's a hopeless situation...0
-
tbergs said:cincybearcat 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...
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.
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.hippiemom = goodness0 -
tbergs said:cincybearcat 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...
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.
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?0 -
cincybearcat said:tbergs said:cincybearcat 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...
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.
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.Post edited by The Juggler onwww.myspace.com0 -
The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:tbergs said:cincybearcat 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...
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.
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.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.hippiemom = goodness0 -
cincybearcat said:The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:tbergs said:cincybearcat 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...
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.
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.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.www.myspace.com0 -
The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:tbergs said:cincybearcat 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...
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.
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.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:tbergs said:cincybearcat 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...
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.
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.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.hippiemom = goodness0 -
The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:tbergs said:cincybearcat 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...
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.
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.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
cincybearcat said:The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:tbergs said:cincybearcat 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...
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.
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.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.www.myspace.com0 -
HughFreakingDillon said:The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:tbergs said:cincybearcat 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...
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.
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.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.
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....
Post edited by The Juggler onwww.myspace.com0 -
HughFreakingDillon said:The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:tbergs said:cincybearcat 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...
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.
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.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
HughFreakingDillon said:The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:tbergs said:cincybearcat 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...
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.
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.
Their decision basically said what everyone already figured....now the hard part of determining what action each time is "official" or not.
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.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help