Yes, exactly. The Chief Justice has scolded the three dumbass liberal justices for fear mongering. “But, but, but, but, what if Trump poisons the Attorney General.” Said Sotomayor as she wet herself along with the liberals on this board.
SCOTUS immunity decision
- Thread starter willdup
- Start date
Would you call osama a corrupt rival? He answered it like a lawyer would. His murder was ordered. This spin is desperate. You pretended. It backfired. You overstepped and the scotus said not so fast. Accept how the government is working. Take your medicine.
- DEI is racism and impacts many people like you. Democrats used to care about fighting racism that didn’t affect you, so what’s the deal with this?
- The left wants the border open, and they will not agree to any strong border policy that keeps illegals out.
- The soft on crime prosecution strategy is a democrat issue.
- Liberal laws say it’s okay for a kid to be groomed from gender transition by a school behind your back. They want this to expand to families like yours.
All of these very real problems are far more damaging to society than your silly unrealistic hypothetical.
So if Trumps lawyer says something is so then that settles it?
The people would not agree and I know SCOTUS would not agree as well.
These sensationalized hypotheticals are ridiculous.
It possibly could be a an official act. What if the rival he was about to detonate a nuclear device in DC to wipe out his opposition?
We can come up with all kinds of crazy hypotheticals for any situation.
Maybe one day a political party will want children to be able to make life altering decisions without the parents knowing. That right there is terrifying. I can come up with more if you like.
Last edited:
All these scary hypotheticals are falling on the same deaf ears made even more deaf by the media / left lies exposed by last week's debate performance from a senile old man.
Looking forward to have someone in office working for Americans and American businesses again.
I didn’t personally “overstep” or do anything else relevant to this discussion, and I find your posts increasing odd in both tone and content.
The degree to which you feel comfortable speaking for the voting public on a decision that is not yet forty eight hours old is interesting. I’m not sure what you base your certainty on, but time will tell if you are correct or not. According to current polling, you are wrong, but I take all polling with a grain of salt.
Irrelevant. He left because the political fallout had already dug his grave. Wasn't a legal question.
I'm not speaking for the voting public without data. Time and time again, the polls reflect what I do.....all the legal stuff just doesn't hit. The exception being abortion, because that is a legal issue that does potentially impact folks' lives. And since that time, I think Trump and the republicans have intelligently moved to the center.
I mean Trump was convicted of a felony, and if anything it moved the polls in his direction, If that doesn't reflect a public's eye-rolling about all this legal stuff and "scary" SCOTUS rulings, I don't know what does.
Your side overstepped. I figured that was assumed. But I guess you needed clarity. Unless you really believe I am blaming you. You did believe Biden was fully functioning so I guess I shouldn’t assume anything. The content of your posts today are damn odd and desperate too. Just responding in kind. You can’t dispute that it is your own party’s fault, so you nitpick. Deflect. You know what I said was right. And you know I told you this kind of thing would happen.
I think it describes both. I would hope most people could acknowledge both have issues professionally and personally.
Just because something is not illegal does not make it right.
Through 38 months of each of their terms Trump had 144 and Biden had 133. That is more often but not that much more.
As far as more aggressively I think not.
I used 38 months because in the 39th month COVID hit and you acknowledged how that could have and did affect the numbers for Trump.
Can you name one other President in our history who stated that he knew his executive order was unconstitutional and he did not care and did it anyway?
That is very aggressive and down right authoritarian.
That’s bullshit.
On August 5th, 1974, the “smoking gun” audio tape was released that proved Nixon had been involved in the Watergate coverup from the beginning. It revealed a conversation between Nixon and his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, on June 23, 1972, discussing plans to obstruct the FBI’s investigation into the break-in. The tape showed that Nixon had lied to the public, Congress, and his own party about his involvement in Watergate.
The full political fallout came because of Nixon’s fight to keep the tapes private and after and because of the release of the tapes forced by SCOTUS. That’s why a delegation of GOP leaders went to the WH on August 7th and told Nixon he no longer had the votes to survive an impeachment hearing.
Under yesterday’s ruling, those tapes would now be protected and would have never been released. Nixon would not have had to engage in the politically damaging fight to keep them private in the first place, much less dealt with the impact of their release.
Immune, immune, immune, immune.
So you can keep leaning on hypotheticals to make your argument, but everything is a hypothetical until it happens. A violent attack on the Capitol to stop certification was an outrageous hypothetical until it happened. In the very real example of Watergate, the SCOTUS just took one of the most momentous events in our political history and effectively undercut prosecution of any similar event in the future.
That’s about as real world as it gets.
No longer authoritarian. It's an official act and immune from check and balance. Run of the mill good ol fashioned democracy according to SCOTUS.
They don’t seem to get that they are using an argument against authoritarianism to defend a SCOTUS decision that enables it.
That is a ridiculous statement. The mental gymnastics on this board are downright amazing at times.
Will, you are typically make valid and rational points. Why the need to take things to the extreme?
He made those statements months before the ruling. I know you think Biden is brilliant but are you saying he is able to see into the future?
I typed out a lengthy response, but decided against posting it. I don't have the energy to deal with the logical fallacies that will certainly follow.
I was a history major at Georgia, and I try and take a long view (both back in time and projecting into the future) when I evaluate events. In this case, that process results in more, not less, concern.
Many people in this country tend to feel that the US is somehow immune to same political pitfalls that have plagued humanity for thousands of years.
As I said above, the decision yesterday applied to Watergate would have almost certainly resulted in a different outcome for Nixon. We would have never heard the tapes that led to his resignation. I find that to be a monumental deal and a cause for great concern.
If I had suggested in 2016 that there was a possibility of something like J6 happening, particularly one led by republicans, I would have been called a nut. Are there possible events two, four or ten years out that we couldn't possibly imagine that could happen? Of course. That's why the rule of law is so important and why these new protections for the POTUS, and they are new, are so dangerous.
In basketball when I would turn the ball over sometimes I would foul the shit out of the guy who took the ball. Frustration foul. It’s been a tough week for the BS that had been spewed heading into that debate.
That's two different issues and yet another example of gaslighting.
Any SCOTUS decision that would have almost certainly altered the outcome of the biggest political scandal of the last one hundred years is worthy of examination and concern regarding future impact.
In related news, former NYC mayor and US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Rudy Giuliani was disbarred today for his role as Trump's chief legal henchmen in the effort to steal the election. He remains under criminal indictment in two states as well as owing a $148m judgment for defamation in the case of the two innocent Fulton County election workers who Trump and team insisted were engaged in voter fraud.
This makes Rudy the fourth lawyer from Trump's election team to be disbarred, suspending (for three years) or be forced into early retirement for their role in Trump's election fraud scam. Three of them have pled to crimes, including felonies.
But I'm sure any potential scenarios that assume Trump will fully utilize his newly granted protections from SCOTUS for nefarious reasons simply represent fearmongering.
EDIT: Official act, immune.
Last edited:
I think Nixon would have been removed with this ruling in place. The main determinant is whether it would fall within the normal activities within the role, an official act.
The hypotheticals being thrown out without giving the context and circumstances is a worthless exercise.
The ruling referenced the lack of clarity involving the cases the DOJ and the states had brought up. They did not attempt to determine whether the acts he had committed might official or unofficial acts. Had they not rushed and evaluated what was done and not done some legal gymnastics(hush money) in some areas and had not used the normal means to rectify the issues(documents case).
Clarence Thomas sent out a warning to Jack smith today in his concurring opinion. He is treading on thin ice. Thomas is a very popular judge. Even amongst the libs. He said, bud you shouldn’t be trying either case and his taking of the case looks to be illegally constituted. lol. I love it.
He just laid out to ole Jack that if he somehow by a miracle gets a conviction on either case he is presiding over, it will be overturned by the Supreme Court. lol. He said we see what you are doing. It isn’t going to fly. Haha.
The left’s calendar girl and favorite, aoc is going to impeach the Supreme Court. Haha. Jesus Christ.
He just laid out to ole Jack that if he somehow by a miracle gets a conviction on either case he is presiding over, it will be overturned by the Supreme Court. lol. He said we see what you are doing. It isn’t going to fly. Haha.
The left’s calendar girl and favorite, aoc is going to impeach the Supreme Court. Haha. Jesus Christ.
Your expertise in history admittedly gives you more knowledge on subjects like this, but is it possible that it also gives you a bias towards always applying the worst parts of history as an example for the “threats” that we see from Trump, the Supreme Court, etc???
I just think that in looking at foreign examples throughout history of governments slowly tacking towards authoritarian regimes and then ultimately becoming terrible dictatorships, there are too many inherent and obvious differences in both the era in which that occurred, the conditions preceding those regimes, and most importantly the structure of the government preceding those regimes. This country may perish one day but it won’t be because a guy like Trump abuses his power. The public and the separation of powers won’t allow it.
The predictions of the country’s demise on both sides are ridiculous.
Clarence Thomas is a popular judge amongst the libs? Ok, now I know you’ve totally lost the thread. Clarence Thomas was hated by the libs before his $2m in unreported luxury trips as a guest of Harlan Crow and friends. What could you possibly be referencing?
Next you are going to tell me how the libs thought the Alito’s pro-insurection flag displays were hysterical.
Almost certainly altered the outcome of the biggest political scandal?
This ruling would not have given him any protection that he already did not have.
No one is saying things are not worthy of examination. This ruling says (my words) that one should not try to manipulate the facts and laws to find a possible crime someone might have committed. They should look at the situation like a reasonable person do and make a determination. Most of these cases were brought up with an outcome already determined(guilty) and then the circumstances and facts were manipulated to find some supposed violation of the law.
Last edited:
We’re grateful for being in the presence of your analytic mind and for being the beneficiaries of your evaluation of events. Art history?
Libs on the court. Not libs like you. Should have clarified. Anyway. Everyone was laughing at Jack smith again. Being known for being shut out by the Supreme Court more than any other attorney ever. Sounds like he is done again. Someone was telling you this may happen. Trying to remember who that was.
That is why libs on the court didn’t take to the benefits case so much. A unanimous vote. They like him. As a human. You are completely unhinged today. Are you ok?
Sorry. What Biden is having smith do is unconstitutional. Who cares about that though. Just get the orange man.
Did you not read what I outlined above? The tapes that Nixon fought so hard to protect and that, upon their release, led to the final
collapse in support from the GOP lawmakers would be completely protected under this ruling. No politically damaging fight to protect the tapes and no massively damaging release of the tapes that proved, in Nixon’s own voice, that he was complicit and Nixon may very well have survived the scandal.
I don’t speak in absolutes about historical events but without the fight over and release of the tapes Watergate is an entirely deal altogether.
You’re a card, duckdawg.
No, I focused on American history, which doesn’t make me right about anything. I was simply attempting to explain the lens through which I view events.
If you prefer to insult me instead of engaging in a discussion, you are welcome to put me on ignore and I’ll do the same.
The scariest thing is that it enables the Liberal party, who is much further down the road to American Authoritarianism than the Right is.
Last edited:
Yes bc party leaders told him it was over. Nixon lied abt something that had nothing to do with the scope of his Presidential duties.
BTW, here's a comment from your boy Larry Tribe.
Wa wa wa. Pot calling the kettle black. Don’t know who said it first not going to look it up but it applies.
If I were u, which I’m so thankful and happy I’m not. I would at least hope I had enough wits to stop emn
hmmm. Rule of law you say. You and your party only believe in the rule of law if it is applied by New York judges and Soros prosecutors to get Trump. You all detest the Supreme Court unless it provides a ruling for the lib cause. SMH. How you can continue saying it’s about democracy and the rule of law when 90% of your post are anti both.
You are a 1 trick pony. You have tds and you don’t care what is done by the govt, which rights are trampled on, which laws are twisted into unrecognizable gibberish as long as it’s anti Trump.
I would also like to go further on the battle of wits comment now that I have more time. Let’s do a few comparisons of you and me.
1. You think Biden is mentally sharp because the left wing media told you so. I’ve known he has been demented for years. 1-0 cherry
2. You think Biden has a good economy because the media and government tell you
I know it sux because I live in the real world not your imagined liberal utopia. 2-0 cherry
3. You don’t think Biden lies. Has to be so because you only mention Trump lies as a reason not to vote for him. Wapo even gave up tracking because there were so many and even your love child cnn noted lots of lies by Biden during the debate. I realize they both lie. 3-0 cherry
4. You love juries, prosecutors, and judges that are 100% liberal, biased, willing to twist laws into unrecognizable gibberish as long as it is anti Trump you do not care. You believe yourself a more astute lawyer than law professors and Supreme Court justices that disagree with you. I’m no lawyer although I did raise one and even though I may sometimes not like a ruling I recognize they know more than me. 4-0 cherry.
Not going well for you will. There are lots more cases we can contrast and compare but not much use. You used the zinger to suggest you have more wit than me but when actually measured we find you only really know left wing propaganda and talking points. Not very witty at all will.
Not after what Biden did to them.
Party leaders told him it was over two days after the public release of the tape that, after this week's ruling, would now be considered privileged and protected.
You are wrong those tapes were not a core action as a President. At best the would be deemed a presumptive action and would not but protected because the actions that actions being discussed were not a normal and covered part of being the President. He does not have the right to steal, record etc.
This is truly an overacting to this decision.
The court did not say he was immune from all of the actions stated. The outlined the areas that were core actions and referred it back to the lower court to review the other actions. This is how it has always been and how it should always be.
A
anon_q2raz786xy94b
Guest
Biden is obviously running because of Hunter’s trials. When you see Newsome giving Hunter immunity, and perhaps getting him out of jail, you’ll know the deal was cut before the convention. No matter what excuse Newsome, or somebody else, makes
I think you need to reexamine what the court determined this week.
The assumption is now that everything is an official act and the burden of proof is extremely high to determine that it isn't an official act. The court also made clear that any evidence from an official act is inadmissible in determining motive regarding the determination in official versus unofficial act. They have completely hamstrung a prosecutor's ability to prove that determination.
This is directly from the decision:
(3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which theyare immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32.
SCOTUS even determined that Trump's public tweets must be assumed official, and the government must prove otherwise, but with a very high burden and great limitations on supporting evidence.
So, back to Watergate, the tapes and any testimony from HR Halderman would be protected and as such inadmissible.
A few other thoughts.
Where in the Constitution or other relevant legal precedent did these supposed rigid originalists find their support for presidential immunity?
Why did they make this decision the very last case they shared when everyone knows that the election is looming, and resolution of this matter is in the country's best interest? They effectively rendered Trump completely immune before the election.
I'm sincerely interested in reading any competing opinions you have to share.
'Originalism is a dead letter': Supreme Court majority accused of abandoning legal principles in Trump immunity ruling
Critics on the left and the right said the decision finding absolute immunity for certain official acts lacks any basis in the Constitution or historic tradition.
www.nbcnews.com
What to know about the Supreme Court immunity ruling in Trump's 2020 election interference case
The Supreme Court’s ruling in former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case makes it all but certain that the Republican will not face trial in Washington ahead of the November election.
apnews.com
Last edited:
