SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

1…6667697172…83

Comments

  • ikiT
    ikiT USA Posts: 11,059
    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 06132018
  • ikiT
    ikiT USA Posts: 11,059
    Format: Hardcover
    Language: English
    ISBN: 173550372X
    ISBN13: 9781735503721
    Length: 320 Pages
    Weight: 3.17 lbs.
    Dimensions: 1.2" x 12.0" x 10.6"
    Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 06132018
  • curmudgeoness
    curmudgeoness Brigadoon, foodie capital Posts: 4,130
    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.
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,513
    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.
    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.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 31,020
    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."
    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. 
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,513
    edited July 2024
    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...
    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.
    Post edited by tbergs on
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    edited July 2024
    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.html
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,513
    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...
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,975
    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...
    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. 
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 31,020
    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...
    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?
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,599
    edited July 2024
    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...
    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.
    Post edited by The Juggler on
    www.myspace.com
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,975
    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...
    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.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,599
    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...
    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. 
    www.myspace.com
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,513
    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...
    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.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,975
    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...
    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. 
    Right but that was always going to happen...
    hippiemom = goodness
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 40,118
    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...
    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. 
    Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer



  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,599
    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...
    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. 
    Right but that was always going to happen...
    Not if they just sent it back to the lower court
    www.myspace.com
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,599
    edited July 2024
    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...
    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. 

    You trust this Supreme Court? I used to....


    Post edited by The Juggler on
    www.myspace.com
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,513
    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...
    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.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 43,311
    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...
    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.
    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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©

Categories