https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-upends-long-standing-precedent-power-federal/story?id=111405252
Seems bad.
Thoughts?
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 28, 2024, 10:37:50 AM
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-upends-long-standing-precedent-power-federal/story?id=111405252
Seems bad.
Thoughts?
Excellent news. I trust corporations to act in the best interest of local communities and the environment. Nothing in the past leads me to believe they won't.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on June 28, 2024, 10:45:27 AM
Excellent news. I trust corporations to act in the best interest of local communities and the environment. Nothing in the past leads me to believe they won't.
If a corporation poisons your groundwater,, you should have chosen somewhere else to live.
But fear not, our effective Congress will figure this out.
Harlan Crow spent wisely, it seems.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 28, 2024, 10:59:57 AM
If a corporation poisons your groundwater,, you should have chosen somewhere else to live.
But fear not, out effective Congress will figure this out.
Harlan Crow spent wisely, it seems.
Lemonis could have Thomas under his thumb, annually, but chose Marquette instead.
Its just another instance of wrecking something without any consideration or care for what replaces it. For all the boogeymanning of the "administrative state" the world is too varied and complicated a place to function without deference to educated and experienced institutions.
IBTL unelected judges know better than lifelong studies of a topic
My water tastes too clean
Lots of discussion in a lawyers FB group I am in about how large the backlog will be in District Court, how to advise clients, how this affects lawyers trying to advise companies on actually doing the right thing, and how patent cases will now be heard by judges with Art History degrees. Also about how one of the goals is enabling a new attack on the FDA approval of the abortion drug.
If you think about it, an originalist's interpretation of precedent is that originally there were no precedents
Quote from: Warriors4ever on June 28, 2024, 04:15:20 PM
Lots of discussion in a lawyers FB group I am in about how large the backlog will be in District Court, how to advise clients, how this affects lawyers trying to advise companies on actually doing the right thing, and how patent cases will now be heard by judges with Art History degrees. Also about how one of the goals is enabling a new attack on the FDA approval of the abortion drug.
Bingo.
https://x.com/stemthebleeding/status/1806736315976749511?s=61&t=jsIZllSIAp6Fe-FmvZNVnw
Quote from: GB Warrior on June 28, 2024, 04:22:07 PM
If you think about it, an originalist's interpretation of precedent is that originally there were no precedents
This is basically the jist of an article in The Atlantic this week that the originalist theory should permanently be killed off because it's self defeating. Any law can be struck down because a judge can make up something "original". The theory says constitutional amendments are needed to fix but made up "originalist" things circumvents the whole theory.
Folks interpret "originalist" however necessary to justify whatever they want to justify, or ignore it entirely if that's more convenient.
In that respect, it's kind of like religion.
For those who don't understand what Chevron Deference (not Doctrine) is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here's the long and short of it:
A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company.
The thing is, federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013.
Why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization?
Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law.
So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.
It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country.
It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired.
No law gave them that authority, they just made it up.
It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a "machine gun".
It's how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a "protected wetlands".
It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the "experts".
Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go.
That's what Chevron Deference was.
It was not only blatantly unconstitutional, it caused immeasurable harm to everyone.
Thankfully, it's now gone.
We haven't even begun to feel the effects of this decision in the courts. It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we'll all be better of for it.
And that's why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.
Thank you Not a Serious Person.
Quote from: NCMUFan on June 30, 2024, 09:16:04 PM
Thank you Not a Serious Person.
As with most things here, he's got it wrong.
And again, a "conservative" majority shows no deference for decades of settled law.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 30, 2024, 09:31:25 PM
As with most things here, he's got it wrong.
And again, a "conservative" majority shows no deference for decades of settled law.
What is settled law? Once a court decides something, it can never ever change. So, you must also think that the Dred Scott decision was wrong to reverse. After all, it was settled law in 1857.
And while you are defining made-up terms. What is Chevron Doctrine?
Quote from: Not A Serious Person on June 30, 2024, 09:56:36 PM
And while you are defining made-up terms. What is Chevron Doctrine?
Nope, you got it man. Your outline was correct, not politically motivated, and no doubt comes after years of study of administrative law and careful consideration. 10/10 no notes, we can shut down the thread.
Quote from: Not A Serious Person on June 30, 2024, 08:58:40 PM
For those who don't understand what Chevron Deference (not Doctrine) is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here's the long and short of it:
A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company.
The thing is, federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013.
Why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization?
Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law.
So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.
It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country.
It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired.
No law gave them that authority, they just made it up.
It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a "machine gun".
It's how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a "protected wetlands".
It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the "experts".
Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go.
That's what Chevron Deference was.
It was not only blatantly unconstitutional, it caused immeasurable harm to everyone.
Thankfully, it's now gone.
We haven't even begun to feel the effects of this decision in the courts. It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we'll all be better of for it.
And that's why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.
For those wondering, Heisy did not write this. He stole it from Spike Cohen and presented it without credit to try and make himself appear smart. If you don't remember Spike Cohen, he ran as a vice presidential candidate on the same ticket as Vermin Supreme, a performance artist known for wearing a boot on his head. He later dumped Vermin for Jo Jennings, the 2020 Libertarian presidential candidate.
https://x.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1807513128479150478
I'm not going to go line by line, but I will mention the biggest omission in Heisy's plagiarism is the word "reasonable" before "interpretation". Chevron did give a lot of power to agencies but there were limits on it that the judiciary could enforce. Agencies' regulations could and regularly were challenged in court and the judiciary had the power to (and regularly did) reign in agencies when they overstepped. Spike/Heisy tried to make it sound like agencies were just making things up with no limits when that wasn't the case (I mean seriously. Spike compares it to being arrested with no judge or jury when judges literally could stop agencies who overstepped their mandates).
And Heisy, I know you are trying to make yourself seem smart by criticizing the use of the term chevron doctrine. Chevron deference is a doctrine and Chevron deference is often shortened to just Chevron.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 01, 2024, 12:11:04 AM
For those wondering, Heisy did not write this. He stole it from Spike Cohen and presented it without credit to try and make himself appear smart. If you don't remember Spike Cohen, he ran as a vice presidential candidate on the same ticket as Vermin Supreme, a performance artist known for wearing a boot on his head. He later dumped Vermin for Jo Jennings, the 2020 Libertarian presidential candidate.
https://x.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1807513128479150478
I'm not going to go line by line, but I will mention the biggest omission in Heisy's plagiarism is the word "reasonable" before "interpretation". Chevron did give a lot of power to agencies but there were limits on it that the judiciary could enforce. Agencies' regulations could and regularly were challenged in court and the judiciary had the power to (and regularly did) reign in agencies when they overstepped. Spike/Heisy tried to make it sound like agencies were just making things up with no limits when that wasn't the case (I mean seriously. Spike compares it to being arrested with no judge or jury when judges literally could stop agencies who overstepped their mandates).
And Heisy, I know you are trying to make yourself seem smart by criticizing the use of the term chevron doctrine. Chevron deference is a doctrine and Chevron deference is often shortened to just Chevron.
I hope Heisey isn't Ivy League affiliated, we might have an issue if so
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 01, 2024, 12:11:04 AM
For those wondering, Heisy did not write this. He stole it from Spike Cohen and presented it without credit to try and make himself appear smart. If you don't remember Spike Cohen, he ran as a vice presidential candidate on the same ticket as Vermin Supreme, a performance artist known for wearing a boot on his head. He later dumped Vermin for Jo Jennings, the 2020 Libertarian presidential candidate.
https://x.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1807513128479150478
I'm not going to go line by line, but I will mention the biggest omission in Heisy's plagiarism is the word "reasonable" before "interpretation". Chevron did give a lot of power to agencies but there were limits on it that the judiciary could enforce. Agencies' regulations could and regularly were challenged in court and the judiciary had the power to (and regularly did) reign in agencies when they overstepped. Spike/Heisy tried to make it sound like agencies were just making things up with no limits when that wasn't the case (I mean seriously. Spike compares it to being arrested with no judge or jury when judges literally could stop agencies who overstepped their mandates).
And Heisy, I know you are trying to make yourself seem smart by criticizing the use of the term chevron doctrine. Chevron deference is a doctrine and Chevron deference is often shortened to just Chevron.
Huh. Who could have ever predicted that Douchey would plagiarize, mislead and elevate the thoughts of a clueless dope, all in one bold stroke?
But what does Simon Charles have to say about it?
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 01, 2024, 12:11:04 AM
For those wondering, Heisy did not write this. He stole it from Spike Cohen and presented it without credit to try and make himself appear smart. If you don't remember Spike Cohen, he ran as a vice presidential candidate on the same ticket as Vermin Supreme, a performance artist known for wearing a boot on his head. He later dumped Vermin for Jo Jennings, the 2020 Libertarian presidential candidate.
https://x.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1807513128479150478
I'm not going to go line by line, but I will mention the biggest omission in Heisy's plagiarism is the word "reasonable" before "interpretation". Chevron did give a lot of power to agencies but there were limits on it that the judiciary could enforce. Agencies' regulations could and regularly were challenged in court and the judiciary had the power to (and regularly did) reign in agencies when they overstepped. Spike/Heisy tried to make it sound like agencies were just making things up with no limits when that wasn't the case (I mean seriously. Spike compares it to being arrested with no judge or jury when judges literally could stop agencies who overstepped their mandates).
And Heisy, I know you are trying to make yourself seem smart by criticizing the use of the term chevron doctrine. Chevron deference is a doctrine and Chevron deference is often shortened to just Chevron.
L
O
L
Quote from: MU82 on July 01, 2024, 06:04:34 AM
Huh. Who could have ever predicted that Douchey would plagiarize, mislead and elevate the thoughts of a clueless dope, all in one bold stroke?
<all of Scoop raises their hands simultaneously>
Yay! More litigation!
I feel like I just watched the bar scene from "Good Will Hunting."
This is better than I could have ever thought. I live rent-free in everyone's brain here.
I own this board!!!
Quote from: Pakuni on June 30, 2024, 09:31:25 PM
As with most things here, he's got it wrong.
And again, a "conservative" majority shows no deference for decades of settled law.
Is it still wrong?
Or have you been exposed as a low-IQ pretender? Because you react only to the poster name, not the words written.
Be honest, I'm the last thought you have when you go to bed and the first thought you have in the morning!
Quote from: Not A Serious Person on July 01, 2024, 07:22:56 AM
Is it still wrong?
Or have you been exposed as a low-IQ pretender? Because you react only to the poster name, not the words written.
Be honest, I'm the last thought you have when you go to bed and the first thought you have in the morning!
Simon Charles
Doing God's work - thanks TAMU.
Quote from: Not A Serious Person on July 01, 2024, 07:18:56 AM
This is better than I could have ever thought. I live rent-free in everyone's brain here.
I own this board!!!
(https://y.yarn.co/58ffed85-394f-42c7-a0e9-f3e10faa84dc_text.gif)
Quote from: Not A Serious Person on July 01, 2024, 07:18:56 AM
This is better than I could have ever thought. I live rent-free in everyone's brain here.
I own this board!!!
Oh. So you're now just a troll. Gotcha.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on July 01, 2024, 09:21:02 AM
Oh. So you're now just a troll. Gotcha.
It's just easy to say, "oh i was just trollin" after you get called out. Saves him from the blow to his ego.
And...Chevron doctrine becomes a footnote. Thanks to SCOTUS we now live in an autocracy.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 01, 2024, 10:15:09 AM
And...Chevron doctrine becomes a footnote. Thanks to SCOTUS we now live in an autocracy.
Imo, a government with Chevron is no more or less autocratic than one without it.
It just doesn't need to be this political. Chevron was a survival mechanism for courts to acknowledge that in the highly technical realm of administrative regulation, the benefit of expertise will most often lie with the administrative agencies developing regulations as a means to implement the law. The administrative apparatus is an extension of the executive branch, and should theoretically be in the Republican mold as much as the Democratic. (Footnote - it is, but Republicans have so thoroughly won the messaging war that they have made it a Democratic boogeyman while almost never relinquishing "expansions" of administrative authority while they are in office.)
Quote from: MUBurrow on July 01, 2024, 10:34:19 AM
Imo, a government with Chevron is no more or less autocratic than one without it.
It just doesn't need to be this political. Chevron was a survival mechanism for courts to acknowledge that in the highly technical realm of administrative regulation, the benefit of expertise will most often lie with the administrative agencies developing regulations as a means to implement the law. The administrative apparatus is an extension of the executive branch, and should theoretically be in the Republican mold as much as the Democratic. (Footnote - it is, but Republicans have so thoroughly won the messaging war that they have made it a Democratic boogeyman while almost never relinquishing "expansions" of administrative authority while they are in office.)
Case in point: the case revolves a rule in question that was finalized during the Trump administration.
Quote from: MUBurrow on July 01, 2024, 10:34:19 AM
Imo, a government with Chevron is no more or less autocratic than one without it.
It just doesn't need to be this political. Chevron was a survival mechanism for courts to acknowledge that in the highly technical realm of administrative regulation, the benefit of expertise will most often lie with the administrative agencies developing regulations as a means to implement the law. The administrative apparatus is an extension of the executive branch, and should theoretically be in the Republican mold as much as the Democratic. (Footnote - it is, but Republicans have so thoroughly won the messaging war that they have made it a Democratic boogeyman while almost never relinquishing "expansions" of administrative authority while they are in office.)
Yep.
Quote from: MUBurrow on July 01, 2024, 10:34:19 AM
Imo, a government with Chevron is no more or less autocratic than one without it.
I'm not talking about Chevron. I'm talking about today's immunity ruling.
In the 10 days or so, the Federalist Society Supreme Court has decided:
- the president is literally above the law
- bribery is legal unless the bribe is hella big
- being homeless is a crime
- government agencies have no agency
But they're just calling balls and strikes.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 01, 2024, 11:26:13 AM
In the 10 days or so, the Federalist Society Supreme Court has decided:
- the president is literally above the law
- bribery is legal unless the bribe is hella big
- being homeless is a crime
- government agencies have no agency
But they're just calling balls and strikes.
None is surprising - especially not the second one, given the bribes that 2 of the justices have been taking for years.
But yes, an interesting stretch of jurisprudence for our democratic republic.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 01, 2024, 10:58:05 AM
I'm not talking about Chevron. I'm talking about today's immunity ruling.
Ahh sorry about that, makes more sense.
Am I missing some rage I should be feeling? The immunity is only for "official acts". That doesn't seem much different that what we've always assumed.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 12:47:25 PM
Am I missing some rage I should be feeling? The immunity is only for "official acts". That doesn't seem much different that what we've always assumed.
I think that depends on who gets to define "official act"
Quote from: jesmu84 on July 01, 2024, 12:51:18 PM
I think that depends on who gets to define "official act"
I'm pretty sure we're going to have to ask the founding fathers what they meant by this. #circularreference
Quote from: MU82 on July 01, 2024, 06:04:34 AM
Huh. Who could have ever predicted that Douchey would plagiarize, mislead and elevate the thoughts of a clueless dope, all in one bold stroke?
Me.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 12:47:25 PM
Am I missing some rage I should be feeling? The immunity is only for "official acts". That doesn't seem much different that what we've always assumed.
Except the majority is basically saying that almost anything a president does while in office can be construed as an "official act," including a crime.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 01, 2024, 01:02:33 PM
Except the majority is basically saying that almost anything a president does while in office can be construed as an "official act," including a crime.
Yep. The current president apparently could have the previous president executed and get away with it as an "official act."
Quote from: MU82 on July 01, 2024, 01:20:05 PM
Yep. The current president apparently could have the previous president executed and get away with it as an "official act."
Saw an amusing quote. You can't forgive student debt but you could drone strike the headquarters of the buildings of the servicing companies
Quote from: MU82 on July 01, 2024, 01:20:05 PM
Yep. The current president apparently could have the previous president executed and get away with it as an "official act."
When you put I this way, it doesn't sound that bad
Quote from: MU82 on July 01, 2024, 01:20:05 PM
Yep. The current president apparently could have the previous president executed and get away with it as an "official act."
Could do the same thing to the court that just made that allowable. And impeachment is basically impossible because anything can be an official act.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 12:47:25 PM
Am I missing some rage I should be feeling? The immunity is only for "official acts". That doesn't seem much different that what we've always assumed.
You're not missing anything, Rocky. The rage is all manufactured.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 01, 2024, 02:28:09 PM
You're not missing anything, Rocky. The rage is all manufactured.
Constitutional scholar weighs in.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 01, 2024, 02:28:09 PM
You're not missing anything, Rocky. The rage is all manufactured.
Maybe Pak is right that they redefined official and unofficial (though I haven't read the decision, and don't plan to). However, I'm 100% certain that putting a hit out on any US citizen is still illegal and unofficial.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 02:47:28 PM
Maybe Pak is right that they redefined official and unofficial (though I haven't read the decision, and don't plan to). However, I'm 100% certain that putting a hit out on any US citizen is still illegal and unofficial.
This was literally asked in the courtroom.
"I'm going to give you a chance to say ... if you stay by it: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him -- is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?" Sotomayor asked during oral arguments.
"It would depend on the hypothetical," Sauer answered. "We could see that could well be an official act."This is exactly what today's ruling sanctioned. This is real. This is happening. We do not live in a democratic republic anymore.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 01, 2024, 03:08:47 PM
This is real. This is happening. We do not live in a democratic republic anymore.
It's not happening. Take a deep breath.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 03:10:38 PM
It's not happening. Take a deep breath.
You're right. It happened.
This is the origin of the "the president is not a king, and the plaintiff is not the president" ruling. Well, that just got overruled. This is laying the groundwork for Project 2025 so the president can do anything without consequence. That's the whole point. This isn't the America we grew up in anymore.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 01, 2024, 03:13:49 PM
You're right. It happened.
This is the origin of the "the president is not a king, and the plaintiff is not the president" ruling. Well, that just got overruled. This is laying the groundwork for Project 2025 so the president can do anything without consequence. That's the whole point. This isn't the America we grew up in anymore.
Sigh. Ok. I disagree, wholeheartedly.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 02:47:28 PM
Maybe Pak is right that they redefined official and unofficial (though I haven't read the decision, and don't plan to). However, I'm 100% certain that putting a hit out on any US citizen is still illegal and unofficial.
Nowhere did Pak say they redefined official and unofficial. In fact, Pak says a big problem with the ruling is that they did nothing to define official and unofficiall. Rather, it seems they go out of their way to leave that questuion as ambiguous as possible.
(Side note: Barrett tried in a concurrence to clear this up, but her efforts are ultimately in vain).
Here's an excerpt from Roberts' majority decision. Key part (IMO) in bold:
But the breadth of the President's "discretionary responsibilities" under the Constitution and laws of the United States frequently makes it "difficult to determine which of [his] innumerable 'functions' encompassed a particular action." The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the "outer perimeter" of the President's official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are "not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.
In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President's motives. Such a "highly intrusive" inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to ju-
dicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose.
Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Roberts is basically saying here that an official act can be just about anything - even an illegal act - so long as it's not "manifestly" beyond presidential authority, extending to the farthest reaches of what may or may not be a presidential responsibility.
And to be clear, when this court says "manifestly," it means "the Constitution specifically bans it."
To me, this reads an awful lot like saying the president can commit a crime while exercising his power so long the Constitution doesn't specifically says he can't commit that crime.
Full decision:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Quote from: Pakuni on July 01, 2024, 03:16:03 PM
Pak says a big problem with the ruling is that they did nothing to define official and unofficial.
Fair, and thanks for the clarifications. I just think people are obsessing about an "outer perimeter" hypothetical, that would probably not be included in immunity if it went to court.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 03:23:03 PM
Fair, and thanks for the clarifications. I just think people are obsessing about an "outer perimeter" hypothetical, that would probably not be included in immunity if it went to court.
You may be right.
But, for me, the fact this ruling makes us couch that with (you) "probably not" and (me) "may be" is concerning in its own right.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 01, 2024, 02:28:09 PM
You're not missing anything, Rocky. The rage is all manufactured.
Yes, SCOTUS granting presidents above-the-law status is a nothingburger. We should hold our rage for truly important issues, such as the War on Christmas, Mr. Potato Head turning into plain ol' Potato Head, gas stoves getting banned, Confederate statues being canceled, etc.
Quote from: MU82 on July 01, 2024, 03:44:47 PM
Yes, SCOTUS granting presidents above-the-law status is a nothingburger. We should hold our rage for truly important issues, such as the War on Christmas, Mr. Potato Head turning into plain ol' Potato Head, gas stoves getting banned, Confederate statues being canceled, etc.
Don't forget the victimization of Caitlin Clark.
Quote from: MU82 on July 01, 2024, 03:44:47 PM
Yes, SCOTUS granting presidents above-the-law status is a nothingburger.
Actually, the the notion of absolute immunity was rejected in this case.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 03:57:24 PM
Actually, the the notion of absolute immunity was rejected it this case.
Shhh. facts not allowed
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 03:57:24 PM
Actually, the the notion of absolute immunity was rejected it this case.
Actually, in her dissent, Sotomayor said: "The President is now a king above the law."
Quote from: MU82 on July 01, 2024, 03:44:47 PM
Yes, SCOTUS granting presidents above-the-law status is a nothingburger. We should hold our rage for truly important issues, such as the War on Christmas, Mr. Potato Head turning into plain ol' Potato Head, gas stoves getting banned, Confederate statues being canceled, etc.
That's not at all what happened. The faux outrage is funny but understandable. Anything to get the fact that our current president is literally Mr Potato Head out of the headlines.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 01, 2024, 04:02:48 PM
That's not at all what happened. The faux outrage is funny but understandable. Anything to get the fact that our current president is literally Mr Potato Head out of the headlines.
I'm surprised you'd want this potato-headed guy to have the kind of immunity this SCOTUS just granted the sitting president.
And my outrage isn't faux. It was an outrageous ruling.
Quote from: MU82 on July 01, 2024, 04:06:03 PM
I'm surprised you'd want this potato-headed guy to have the kind of immunity this SCOTUS just granted the sitting president.
And my outrage isn't faux. It was an outrageous ruling.
I was giving you credit. If not faux, it's just hyperbolic and dumb.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 03:57:24 PM
Actually, the the notion of absolute immunity was rejected in this case.
True, but don't confuse 82 (and the justice who wrote a ridiculous dissent) with the facts.
Quote from: MU82 on July 01, 2024, 04:02:38 PM
Actually, in her dissent, Sotomayor said: "The President is now a king above the law."
Not to be taken literally. So President Biden would be immune if someone alleges he overstepped his power in a federal trial?
The fact is that the President has to have some immunity. The other fact is that it's obviously not limitless. Where that line is ultimately drawn is the issue. This case was obviously going to come to the same conclusion.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 01, 2024, 04:02:48 PM
That's not at all what happened. The faux outrage is funny but understandable. Anything to get the fact that our current president is literally Mr Potato Head out of the headlines.
First, it's not "faux outrage." It may be misplaced or exaggerated, but people are legit outraged.
Second, if you think people aren't talking about Biden's performance on Friday and discussing the ramifications of it, you aren't paying attention. It's been dominating the media discourse for over 48 hours.
Quote from: lawdog77 on July 01, 2024, 04:12:14 PM
Not to be taken literally. So President Biden would be immune if someone alleges he overstepped his power in a federal trial?
According to Roberts, he would be immune if a friendly judge decides that it's slightly related to a presidential responsibility. Would, say, "speaking" with federal prosecutors and instructing them to pursue a case a certain way be within the purview of the president? He is the head of the Executive Branch, after all. Who knows? Roberts won't tell us.
As Sultan correctly notes, the president needs to have some level of immunity. Where the ruling gets problematic, IMO, is the court a) muddying (intentionally?) the line between official and unofficial acts and b) quite literally stating the president
can commit a crime if it's committed within the "outer perimeter" of presidential authority.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on July 01, 2024, 04:20:34 PM
First, it's not "faux outrage." It may be misplaced or exaggerated, but people are legit outraged.
Second, if you think people aren't talking about Biden's performance on Friday and discussing the ramifications of it, you aren't paying attention. It's been dominating the media discourse for over 48 hours.
Facts
Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 01, 2024, 04:29:18 PM
Just like most laws governing the government, it's not a huge issue until you have a bad actor holding the office actively trying to find the outer bounds of what they can get away with.
I consider the SC rulings to be a monster problem with the election coming up, and this is 50/50 the end of democracy in the US. I guess we'll see.
RE: Bidens performance - He was low energy but he answered the questions and stuck to facts. The other guy lied the whole way through the debate. Not really comparable if you have strong values.
Neither candidate really answered the questions. They both suck.
Biden was terrible. No reason to say otherwise.
Quote from: lawdog77 on July 01, 2024, 04:38:33 PM
Neither candidate really answered the questions. They both suck.
They suck in distinctly different ways which makes it an easy values judgement.
There's one of those two that I trust to not assassinate a US citizen on US soil as a part of official business. Which is completely legal now.
Let's get back to the topic at hand and that's laughing at Heisenberg's post
Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 01, 2024, 04:42:26 PM
They suck in distinctly different ways which makes it an easy values judgement.
There's one of those two that I trust to not assassinate a US citizen on US soil as a part of official business. Which is completely legal now.
One is a morally bankrupt liar. The other is a shell of his former self, who should not be running. It's like having to answer the question, would you rather be shot or stabbed?
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 03:57:24 PM
Actually, the the notion of absolute immunity was rejected in this case.
The Court gave complete immunity for anything done within the core functions of the office. A President sending troops into a foreign country to protect his/her personal business interests would not appear to be subject to criminal review if he/she couches the raid in terms of national defense. Presumptive immunity is given for anything done within even the outer bounds of the office. As Barrett said, the President has no role in monitoring the elections in states but the majority sent the fake elector effort back to the lower courts for a determination.
I am wondering what Biden can now do without fear of retribution.
Given its disregard for precedent and creating immunity that is not delineated in the Constitution, it will be interesting to see if legal scholars eventually view the Roberts Court as more activist than the Warren Court. In any event, Roberts is sure to get a nice free vacation out of it.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on July 01, 2024, 04:20:34 PM
First, it's not "faux outrage." It may be misplaced or exaggerated, but people are legit outraged.
Second, if you think people aren't talking about Biden's performance on Friday and discussing the ramifications of it, you aren't paying attention. It's been dominating the media discourse for over 48 hours.
So hyperbolic or dumb, the alternatives I acknowledged.
And the ONLY thing people have been talking about since Thursday is what to do about Joe. This gives those folks something else (that they'd much prefer) to obsess about.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 01, 2024, 04:46:12 PM
Let's get back to the topic at hand and that's laughing at Heisenberg's post
Cutting-and-pasting someone else's work and presenting it as your own is an official duty of being Heisey and he is therefore immune to mockery.
Quote from: Zog from Margo on July 01, 2024, 04:54:22 PM
A President sending troops into a foreign country to protect his/her personal business interests would not appear to be subject to criminal review if he/she couches the raid in terms of national defense.
But avoiding the "state of war" to avoid congressional approval is still a hurdle.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 01, 2024, 04:07:40 PM
I was giving you credit. If not faux, it's just hyperbolic and dumb.
It's neither hyperbolic nor dumb IMHO. I'm disappointed you resorted to a personal attack over a difference of opinion.
It was an outrageous decision.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 01, 2024, 05:00:11 PM
So hyperbolic or dumb, the alternatives I acknowledged.
And the ONLY thing people have been talking about since Thursday is what to do about Joe. This gives those folks something else (that they'd much prefer) to obsess about.
Oh. So you were wrong. Gotcha.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 01, 2024, 05:00:11 PM
And the ONLY thing people have been talking about since Thursday is what to do about Joe. This gives those folks something else (that they'd much prefer) to obsess about.
So it's your contention that had SCOTUS released this decision a week ago - 3 days before the debate - hardly anybody would care about it because they wouldn't need to deflect from Biden's poor debate performance?
That's silly.
It's a landmark decision from an ever more partisan and compromised U.S. Supreme Court about a subject that an entire nation has been discussing since the then-president of the United States fomented a violent coup attempt against his own country.
Sotomayor's dissent was the one rational thing to come out of that decision. She sees exactly what the intent of this is. To give absolute power to any president willing to take it.
If you want to be the frog placidly wondering why the water seems to be warming, I guess that's one way to approach what is obviously a five-alarm fire being lit to the foundation of our democracy.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 01, 2024, 05:38:36 PM
Sotomayor's dissent was the one rational thing to come out of that decision. She sees exactly what the intent of this is. To give absolute power to any president willing to take it.
If you want to be the frog placidly wondering why the water seems to be warming, I guess that's one way to approach what is obviously a five-alarm fire being lit to the foundation of our democracy.
Well then, I guess we'll probably see presidential candidates and supreme court justices having "heart attacks" in the next couple weeks.
Seriously, you are overblowing the whole thing. You realize the only people that theorized that murder would be acceptable were a) trumps lawyer, and b) Sotomayor.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 05:45:26 PM
Seriously, you are overblowing the whole thing. You realize the only people that theorized that murder would be acceptable were a) trumps lawyer, and b) Sotomayor.
Honest question ... What in this ruling suggests murder would not be acceptable?
Yeah, and Hillary Clinton was wrong when she said they'd overturn Roe. ::) ::) ::)
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on July 01, 2024, 05:08:51 PM
Oh. So you were wrong. Gotcha.
No.
Aren't you on vacation? Why don't you play with the grandkids, take a walk with the wife or have dinner with friends instead of feeding your Scoop addiction? Maybe assuming grandkids, a wife or friends who want to be with you is a bridge too far but a guy can hope.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 01, 2024, 05:56:46 PM
Honest question ... What in this ruling suggests murder would not be acceptable?
Well, the majority knew Sotomayor's opinion, and didn't give it another thought. And from what you've shared from the majority opinion (I still haven't read more), I always ask the legal question of "should I reasonably assume that gives me permission to ____". And the answer is always NO when "murder" is the ____.
So, that's my opinion. Subject to being wrong when the heart attacks start happening...
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 01, 2024, 05:56:52 PM
Yeah, and Hillary Clinton was wrong when she said they'd overturn Roe. ::) ::) ::)
She was wrong, but that also wasn't the end of abortion, was it?
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 01, 2024, 05:38:36 PM
Sotomayor's dissent was the one rational thing to come out of that decision. She sees exactly what the intent of this is. To give absolute power to any president willing to take it.
If you want to be the frog placidly wondering why the water seems to be warming, I guess that's one way to approach what is obviously a five-alarm fire being lit to the foundation of our democracy.
Paranoia strikes deep.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 06:04:54 PM
She was wrong, but that also wasn't the end of abortion, was it?
No you're right, just back to the states who have shown they are tremendous caretakers of freedom
Quote from: GB Warrior on July 01, 2024, 06:08:43 PM
No you're right, just back to the states who have shown they are tremendous caretakers of freedom
Indeed!
https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/despite-bans-number-abortions-united-states-increased-2023
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 05:04:07 PM
But avoiding the "state of war" to avoid congressional approval is still a hurdle.
Yep. Like Vietnam.
Quote from: Zog from Margo on July 01, 2024, 06:10:49 PM
Yep. Like Vietnam.
Congress still approved troop deployment in that case.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 06:09:54 PM
Indeed!
https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/despite-bans-number-abortions-united-states-increased-2023
Ok but what about the states with bans. "There are at least some states who are caretakers of freedoms" isn't quite the republican (lowercase) utopia the founders were gunning for.
Quote from: GB Warrior on July 01, 2024, 06:15:16 PM
Ok but what about the states with bans. "There are at least some states who are caretakers of freedoms" isn't quite the republican (lowercase) utopia the founders were gunning for.
I feel bad that women have to travel in those circumstances. Don't take my views on the recent immunity decision as some absolute box that needs to fit into political paradigms. I really think we all need to understand where to pick our battles. This isn't one of those cases (IMO).
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 06:04:14 PM
Well, the majority knew Sotomayor's opinion, and didn't give it another thought. And from what you've shared from the majority opinion (I still haven't read more), I always ask the legal question of "should I reasonably assume that gives me permission to ____". And the answer is always NO when "murder" is the ____.
So, that's my opinion. Subject to being wrong when the heart attacks start happening...
Respectfully, that wasn't my question.
You're being very generous here. As a good and decent person, you're assuming that the ruling couldn't possibly allow murder because murder is wrong and "What kind of ruling would allow murder?!?!?!?"
The problem isn't that the ruling explicitly allows murder. The problem is that it says "Well, maybe the president could murder. Depends on the circumstances. Tell us when it happens and we'll let you know."
It shouldn't take an actual murder happening to see why that's troublesome.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 06:04:54 PM
She was wrong, but that also wasn't the end of abortion, was it?
Roe was overturned, so no, she wasn't.
And in 17 states, there are total or 6-week bans which is before many women know they're pregnant, so for them, yes, it was.
Project 2025 outlines how the Comstock Act will be used to implement a federal abortion ban if Trump wins.
And you'll note I said "a president willing to take it." I don't think Biden is that president. But if he loses in November, Trump absolutely would be.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 01, 2024, 06:20:41 PM
Roe was overturned, so no, she wasn't.
[clip]
And you'll note I said "a president willing to take it." I don't think Biden is that president. But if he loses in November, Trump absolutely would be.
Sorry, I don't actually pay attention to what politicians say, so I misunderstood what you meant about what Hillary said.
Biden is the perfect guy to test your theory. Already suffers from the public opinion of mental fitness, put out the hit jobs and say you didn't understand! I'm sure the SC will clear him because of immunity! lol.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 01, 2024, 06:19:51 PM
Respectfully, that wasn't my question.
Ok. I'll back off.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 06:25:15 PM
Sorry, I don't actually pay attention to what politicians say, so I misunderstood what you meant about what Hillary said.
Biden is the perfect guy to test your theory. Already suffers from the public opinion of mental fitness, put out the hit jobs and say you didn't understand! I'm sure the SC will clear him because of immunity! lol.
Joe's celebrating - no longer criminally responsible for Afghanistan, the border, etc.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 06:19:30 PM
I feel bad that women have to travel in those circumstances. Don't take my views on the recent immunity decision as some absolute box that needs to fit into political paradigms. I really think we all need to understand where to pick our battles. This isn't one of those cases (IMO).
Mmmhm
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/17/1252218618/interstate-travel-becomes-a-target-for-the-anti-abortion-movement-with-texas-fil
Also get fucked if you can't afford to travel but get SA'd in some states aina
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 01, 2024, 06:28:09 PM
Joe's celebrating - no longer criminally responsible for Afghanistan, the border, etc.
No president has been held criminally responsible for war crimes like, ever.
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on July 01, 2024, 06:28:31 PM
Mmmhm
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/17/1252218618/interstate-travel-becomes-a-target-for-the-anti-abortion-movement-with-texas-fil
Also get unnatural carnal knowledgeed if you can't afford to travel but get SA'd in some states aina
I'm going to politely request we don't continue the abortion conversation (because it WILL go off the rails). But even according to your article: "DAVID NOLL: Most courts, even in Texas, are ultimately going to end up dismissing it. But that doesn't mean these petitions don't have an effect."
Yes, abortion is a hot topic for lots of people. I'm a man, I shouldn't really get a say, but if I did I would allow women to do what they want. Lots of people would disagree with me. Tis the world.
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on July 01, 2024, 06:29:34 PM
No president has been held criminally responsible for war crimes like, ever.
No President has ever been held responsible for mishandling classified docs, paying off blackmailers, etc., etc. Going after one's political opponents criminally is kinda a new thing.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 01, 2024, 06:35:44 PM
No President has ever been held responsible for mishandling classified docs, paying off blackmailers, etc., etc. Going after one's political opponents criminally is kinda a new thing.
Alright folks. I don't mean for my participation to mean "lets go" on politics. Really, just interested in this immunity decision by the court (and the backlash to it)...try to keep politics out of it.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 06:39:39 PM
Alright folks. I don't mean for my participation to mean "lets go" on politics. Really, just interested in this immunity decision by the court (and the backlash to it)...try to keep politics out of it.
Gotta flick those cigarette butts away from the dead grass. But noted and apologies
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on July 01, 2024, 06:47:31 PM
Gotta flick those cigarette butts away from the dead grass.
C'mon man. You're just dehydrated grass. You'll green up the next time the rain comes!
While the immunity decision is one that seems to against a founding principle that no man is above the law, Chevron is much worse for the American populace (until a legit autocrat becomes pres).
Quote from: MU82 on July 01, 2024, 04:02:38 PM
Actually, in her dissent, Sotomayor said: "The President is now a king above the law."
Yet again demonstrating that when the U.S. Supreme Court convenes, Sotomayor is the stupidest person in the room.
nm
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 06:14:14 PM
Congress still approved troop deployment in that case.
So you send the troops and then blame Congress for not including supplies in the budget. Not really a Constitutional hurdle. At the time I think they called it a police action, which now could be undertaken with full immunity.
Quote from: Zog from Margo on July 01, 2024, 07:42:31 PM
So you send the troops and then blame Congress for not including supplies in the budget. Not really a Constitutional hurdle. At the time I think they called it a police action, which now could be undertaken with full immunity.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/tonkin-gulf-resolution
QuoteResolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.
Quotethe United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.
Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.
That was NOT an action the president acted on himself! Sure it got around the "act of war" rules, but nobody could argue it wasn't an official act!
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 06:25:15 PM
Sorry, I don't actually pay attention to what politicians say, so I misunderstood what you meant about what Hillary said.
Biden is the perfect guy to test your theory. Already suffers from the public opinion of mental fitness, put out the hit jobs and say you didn't understand! I'm sure the SC will clear him because of immunity! lol.
He doesn't need to. He can put out a hit and say it is an official act because trump has already declared he will be a dictator on day 1. Hence, it would be an official act because it is done in the explicit case of losing our democracy.
We have one justice who has said he supports fully the overthrow of the US gov't. We have another who shows the same symptoms. They were the deciding votes.
This is the biggest hit to the existence and ideals of US democracy in our history.
Quote from: Jockey on July 01, 2024, 08:24:36 PM
This is the biggest hit to the existence and ideals of US democracy in our history.
If true...all hail king Biden. How's the royal family working out for England? Big tax drain.
Quote from: Jockey on July 01, 2024, 08:24:36 PM
We have one justice who has said he supports fully the overthrow of the US gov't. We have another who shows the same symptoms. They were the deciding votes.
In which case, according to you, their decision is in contrast to self preservation. By your analysis, I'd expect them both "removed" in the next couple months.
Quote from: Dickthedribbler on July 01, 2024, 07:13:11 PM
Yet again demonstrating that when the U.S. Supreme Court convenes, Sotomayor is the stupidest person in the room.
Lol.
Sotomayor's not the one who's had to publicly an opion due to errors.
Nor is she the one caught publishing opinions with falsehoods.
Sotomayor's opinion is eloquent, firm, and correct. And yet the only opinion from her I care about is that she develops the opinion she should retire this term so this president gets to seat the replacement
Quote from: Pakuni on July 01, 2024, 08:56:30 PM
due to errors.
falsehoods.
These are good points. Should SC opinions be subject to peer review before "decisions"?
https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 09:04:51 PM
These are good points. Should SC opinions be subject to peer review before "decisions"?
https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find
Back to why we use to rely on agencies of experts to implement these things instead of relying on the coarse words of congress or the courts.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 01, 2024, 09:07:42 PM
Back to why we use to rely on agencies of experts to implement these things instead of relying on the coarse words of congress or the courts.
Indeed. Gotcha. I do think the idea of a "supreme court" is flawed.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 09:04:51 PM
These are good points. Should SC opinions be subject to peer review before "decisions"?
https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find
In theory, they (read: their clerks) provide peer review. In reality, it turns out Supreme Court justices and their clerks aren't any better at avoiding confirmation bias than the rest of us.
As for peer review, I have a hard time imagining any world in which Supreme Court justices have the humility to submit their work to external fact-checking.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 01, 2024, 09:14:46 PM
humility to submit their work to external fact-checking.
Agreed. Humility is not a strong point. And that's kinda a problem.
How many days/months/years until we discover the first GPT-created supreme court brief?
Quote from: Jockey on July 01, 2024, 08:24:36 PM
He doesn't need to. He can put out a hit and say it is an official act because trump has already declared he will be a dictator on day 1. Hence, it would be an official act because it is done in the explicit case of losing our democracy.
We have one justice who has said he supports fully the overthrow of the US gov't. We have another who shows the same symptoms. They were the deciding votes.
This is the biggest hit to the existence and ideals of US democracy in our history.
Source?
Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 01, 2024, 09:24:47 PM
How many days/months/years until we discover the first GPT-created supreme court brief?
Less than 2 years...until an AI hallucination makes it. Though it's not just AI...just internet "facts".
Recently a friend complained that her AC kept her main level very cool, and the upstairs too warm. Her and her neighbors theorized that lack of appropriate "upstairs" returns may be causing the problem. Perhaps true, but I suggested just closing a few main level vents - to which she replied with an article saying you should never do that, it'll cause excess pressure in the system, waste energy, kill your HVAC system, and might be a danger to your health!
Well, it turns out one of those is true. It might waste energy. But could keep you more comfortable (assuming you close less than 60% of the vents)
https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/question/closing-vents-in-unused-rooms
https://escholarship.org/content/qt4vw4v8wz/qt4vw4v8wz.pdf
But what she sent is a WIDESPREAD internet hallucination.
In the end, she closed a couple main level vents and now both levels maintain the same temperature.
edit: I'll add...several articles mentioned "static airflow" and how you could mess it up. No offense to HVAC techs out there, but most residential HVAC guys do zero static airflow analysis other than using blower size vs sq footage.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 09:09:11 PM
Indeed. Gotcha. I do think the idea of a "supreme court" is flawed.
I don't think the idea is flawed, but partisan appointees are. A better process would be to require replacement justices to gain unanimous consent from the sitting justices to join the court. If Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan can't agree, the nominee isn't seated.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 01, 2024, 09:41:46 PM
I don't think the idea is flawed, but partisan appointees are. A better process would be to require replacement justices to gain unanimous consent from the sitting justices to join the court. If Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan can't agree, the nominee isn't seated.
I guess. There are several different ways you could pick justices that are better than what we have right now. But *I* think the problem is the that most of them interpret "supreme" as in their own power, not the level of justice. (see previous humility comments)
Quote from: lawdog77 on July 01, 2024, 09:28:31 PM
Source?
Thomas' wife worked to overthrow the election. that is well documented and her comments, texts, etc. are available.
When asked about his wife's role in the attempted coup, Thomas said he supports everything his wife does.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 07:47:03 PM
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/tonkin-gulf-resolution
That was NOT an action the president acted on himself! Sure it got around the "act of war" rules, but nobody could argue it wasn't an official act!
By the time that resolution was passed, the US had been in Vietnam for 9 years and already had 9,000 troops there by 1962.
Besides, all of the actions taken by Presidents in conjunction with Vietnam were official acts. That's the point. Based on the domino theory, the President didn't need Congressional approval to take unilateral action to defend the country. Given that is a core function of the office, the President today would have absolute immunity in sending in troops and history shows that the Constitution would not require a declaration of war. The only remedy would be impeachment, which, as we have seen, cannot occur unless one party both controls the House and has a 2/3rds majority in the Senate.
Quote from: Zog from Margo on July 01, 2024, 10:27:55 PM
By the time that resolution was passed, the US had been in Vietnam for 9 years and already had 9,000 troops there by 1962.
This is going to sound incredibly tone def, and Vietnam was largely before I was born. In 1960 the US had 2.4 million service members, 870k in the army. You're talking about <0.5% of service members before the resolution.
Perhaps this is personal to you, and for that I'm appreciative an apologize. But it has little to do with the SC immunity decision.
I'm actually with Rocky to some extent, in that in many regards there wasn't anything that exceptional about the overall decision in this case.
The president should have immunity for most official actions.
What makes this so problematic, is they took the case up to hear it in full. If this is the route they were going to go, they could have easily refused the case, saying it was premature, due to the fact that no decisions have been made by lower courts on whether these were official actions or actions outside of official presidential business.
They could have let the courts make the decisions, try the cases, and let Trump appeal.
Instead, they took the case up, delayed all the trials, and then made a decision that essentially punts back to the lower courts anyways.
It makes it look like it was all a ruse to protect Trump from prosecution.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 01, 2024, 06:01:21 PM
No.
Aren't you on vacation? Why don't you play with the grandkids, take a walk with the wife or have dinner with friends instead of feeding your Scoop addiction? Maybe assuming grandkids, a wife or friends who want to be with you is a bridge too far but a guy can hope.
I have no grandkids. And you were wrong.
But keep trying.
Quote from: Jockey on July 01, 2024, 10:12:42 PM
Thomas' wife worked to overthrow the election. that is well documented and her comments, texts, etc. are available.
When asked about his wife's role in the attempted coup, Thomas said he supports everything his wife does.
That's quite the leap.Ms. Thomas might be crazy, but her husband isnt going to criticize her in public. She isnt going to influence his decisions, if you know anything about him.
just catching up on the discussion, watching from the outside, I can honestly say that I was thoroughly impressed with Rockies moderation here. decent command of the topic while acknowledging he hasn't read the whole thing as i'm sure very few of the others have as well. but tactfully walking the fine line here while keeping some of the known "activists" and heavy breathers under control. I say he deserves a raise ;D
regardless of heisy's post being plagiarized or not, it was super informative and summarized the Chevron thingy brilliantly, but gave the "haters" more reason to hate because the hate the message and the messenger. damn you heisy-just put quotes and a footnote man and you would still have been hated, but the haters would have had less ammo
Quote from: Jockey on July 01, 2024, 10:12:42 PM
Thomas' wife worked to overthrow the election. that is well documented and her comments, texts, etc. are available.
When asked about his wife's role in the attempted coup, Thomas said he supports everything his wife does.
you and 82 snuggling together is a weird look, but yeah, I could see it
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 02, 2024, 06:01:21 AM
just catching up on the discussion, watching from the outside, I can honestly say that I was thoroughly impressed with Rockies moderation here. decent command of the topic while acknowledging he hasn't read the whole thing as i'm sure very few of the others have as well. but tactfully walking the fine line here while keeping some of the known "activists" and heavy breathers under control. I say he deserves a raise ;D
regardless of heisy's post being plagiarized or not, it was super informative and summarized the Chevron thingy brilliantly, but gave the "haters" more reason to hate because the hate the message and the messenger. damn you heisy-just put quotes and a footnote man and you would still have been hated, but the haters would have had less ammo
Heisey's post was also filled with exaggerations.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 02, 2024, 06:02:22 AM
you and 82 snuggling together is a weird look, but yeah, I could see it
you and 45 snuggling together ... I definitely could see that.
Quote from: lawdog77 on July 02, 2024, 05:52:31 AM
That's quite the leap.Ms. Thomas might be crazy, but her husband isnt going to criticize her in public. She isnt going to influence his decisions, if you know anything about him.
But the bribes will
I won't have time to check in much today... So... Behave!
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 02, 2024, 07:49:41 AM
I won't have time to check in much today... So... Behave!
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/cMALqIjmb7ygw/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952rr6ctojsokda0rx6h5xsgfo2req31dcnptqwqtiz&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)
Quote from: lawdog77 on July 02, 2024, 07:52:29 AM
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/cMALqIjmb7ygw/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952rr6ctojsokda0rx6h5xsgfo2req31dcnptqwqtiz&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)
;D ;D ;D
Don't make me pull this website over or so help me....
A survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 7 in 10 Americans think the high court's justices are more influenced by ideology, while only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults think the justices are more likely to provide an independent check on other branches of government by being fair and impartial.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-presidential-immunity-abortion-gun-2918d3af5e37e44bbad9c3526506c66d?
Quote from: MU82 on July 02, 2024, 08:26:21 AM
A survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 7 in 10 Americans think the high court's justices are more influenced by ideology, while only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults think the justices are more likely to provide an independent check on other branches of government by being fair and impartial.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-presidential-immunity-abortion-gun-2918d3af5e37e44bbad9c3526506c66d?
Feelings, not facts
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on July 02, 2024, 06:30:27 AM
Heisey's post was also filled with exaggerations.
That's putting it lightly. It deserves the Billy Madison principal treatment.
Quote from: lawdog77 on July 02, 2024, 08:30:10 AM
Feelings, not facts
Of course. That's what surveys are.
I happen to think the majority is right on this one, but that's also an opinion.
they should come up with fines for those(pols) who blatantly and openly disparage the calls they don't like just like in sports. especially the higher ups-that's kinda like, "that's a nice family ya got there-hate to see anything bad happen to them"
wut?
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 02, 2024, 08:59:03 AM
they should come up with fines for those(pols) who blatantly and openly disparage the calls they don't like just like in sports. especially the higher ups-that's kinda like, "that's a nice family ya got there-hate to see anything bad happen to them"
Huh.
9 out of 10 for wild lack of self-awareness
Quote from: lawdog77 on July 02, 2024, 08:30:10 AM
Feelings, not facts
Why not both?
I don't know how one reads some of these opinions (looking at you,
Bruen) and find them not ideologically driven.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 02, 2024, 06:01:21 AM
just catching up on the discussion, watching from the outside, I can honestly say that I was thoroughly impressed with Rockies moderation here. decent command of the topic while acknowledging he hasn't read the whole thing as i'm sure very few of the others have as well. but tactfully walking the fine line here while keeping some of the known "activists" and heavy breathers under control. I say he deserves a raise ;D
regardless of heisy's post being plagiarized or not, it was super informative and summarized the Chevron thingy brilliantly, but gave the "haters" more reason to hate because the hate the message and the messenger. damn you heisy-just put quotes and a footnote man and you would still have been hated, but the haters would have had less ammo
And thusly, Rocky's position was undermind and he took a break from Scoop.
(https://i.imgur.com/7S8hPil.jpeg)
Quote from: Pakuni on July 01, 2024, 05:01:19 PM
Cutting-and-pasting someone else's work and presenting it as your own is an official duty of being Heisey and he is therefore immune to mockery.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on July 02, 2024, 06:30:27 AM
Heisey's post was also filled with exaggerations.
Why are people complaining about Heisy's post? Cutting-and-pasting someone else's work and being full of exaggerations has worked for the current president...
Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 02, 2024, 11:42:01 AM
And thusly, Rocky's position was undermind and he took a break from Scoop.
(https://i.imgur.com/7S8hPil.jpeg)
Bump
Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean said Monday that had the Supreme Court's immunity ruling been in force in the early 1970s, history could have turned out very differently.
"As I looked at it, I realized Richard Nixon would have had a pass" because the evidence against him was based on official acts the Supreme Court has deemed immune from prosecution, Dean told reporters.
The Watergate scandal began with a break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and expanded to include a host of clandestine and illicit activities in which the Nixon administration and campaign played a part, resulting in dozens of convictions of Nixon aides and associates.
Dean, who became a star witness during the Watergate investigation, called Monday's ruling "a radical decision by a radical court" and "judicial activism on steroids."
(Above from Washington Post)
Quote from: MU82 on July 02, 2024, 01:18:42 PM
Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean said Monday that had the Supreme Court's immunity ruling been in force in the early 1970s, history could have turned out very differently.
"As I looked at it, I realized Richard Nixon would have had a pass" because the evidence against him was based on official acts the Supreme Court has deemed immune from prosecution, Dean told reporters.
The Watergate scandal began with a break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and expanded to include a host of clandestine and illicit activities in which the Nixon administration and campaign played a part, resulting in dozens of convictions of Nixon aides and associates.
Dean, who became a star witness during the Watergate investigation, called Monday's ruling "a radical decision by a radical court" and "judicial activism on steroids."
(Above from Washington Post)
The impeachment process was discussed during the ratification of the constitution. Would be good for some to revisit that.
Quote from: MU82 on July 02, 2024, 01:18:42 PM
Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean said Monday that had the Supreme Court's immunity ruling been in force in the early 1970s, history could have turned out very differently.
"As I looked at it, I realized Richard Nixon would have had a pass" because the evidence against him was based on official acts the Supreme Court has deemed immune from prosecution, Dean told reporters.
The Watergate scandal began with a break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and expanded to include a host of clandestine and illicit activities in which the Nixon administration and campaign played a part, resulting in dozens of convictions of Nixon aides and associates.
Dean, who became a star witness during the Watergate investigation, called Monday's ruling "a radical decision by a radical court" and "judicial activism on steroids."
(Above from Washington Post)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDYh5j5w2khGILWPSuXWKvI1ViP6GCxq-vmCAY8Q52qbwWitXcT8BO5YtmpuqegRkq7DA&usqp=CAU)
Well, if we're gonna keep talking about the immunity...
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fake-electors-scheme-supreme-court-1919928
This entire discussion is silly. trump is a criminal who is now above the law thanks to criminals on the Supreme Court.
The republican party has the same integrity as the catholic priesthood.
Quote from: Jockey on July 02, 2024, 03:56:14 PM
This entire discussion is silly. trump is a criminal who is now above the law thanks to criminals on the Supreme Court.
The republican party has the same integrity as the catholic priesthood.
There's been some silly in this discussion. You win first prize.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 02, 2024, 06:01:21 AM
regardless of heisy's post being plagiarized or not, it was super informative and summarized the Chevron thingy brilliantly, but gave the "haters" more reason to hate because the hate the message and the messenger. damn you heisy-just put quotes and a footnote man and you would still have been hated, but the haters would have had less ammo
Not one to usually give credit to him here but "Haters gonna hate, hahaha they're so mad!" is actually a pretty succinct portrayal of the ideologies of concerningly many people in this world.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 02, 2024, 04:02:20 PM
There's been some silly in this discussion. You win first prize.
The Court literally ruled that he is above the law. Sentencing already postponed ( ;D ;D ;D ) in NY. Took less than 24 hours.
Lotsa sand in Florida to bury your head in.
Quote from: Jockey on July 02, 2024, 04:12:59 PM
The Court literally ruled that he is above the law. Sentencing already postponed ( ;D ;D ;D ) in NY. Took less than 24 hours.
Lotsa sand in Florida to bury your head in.
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/918ea09a-cc85-47e6-8de7-84e63321c36f
Quote from: Jockey on July 02, 2024, 03:56:14 PM
This entire discussion is silly. trump is a criminal who is now above the law thanks to criminals on the Supreme Court.
The republican party has the same integrity as the catholic priesthood.
You don't need to use hyperbole to criticize this outrageous SCOTUS ruling.
For example, to the best of our knowledge, zero SCOTUS justices are criminals. But at least two of the well-right-of-center justices are ethically compromised. That's an effective criticism that is also a documented fact.
Quote from: Jockey on July 02, 2024, 03:56:14 PM
This entire discussion is silly. trump is a criminal who is now above the law thanks to criminals on the Supreme Court.
The republican party has the same integrity as the catholic priesthood.
As someone who finds the ruling pretty problematic, that's an exaggeration.
The reality is, all government workers - from presidents to teachers to cops to village board members - receive some level of immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability for their actions. The issue as always is how far that immunity extends and under what circumstances it is granted.
Roberts' ruling goes too far, IMO.
Quote from: Jockey on July 02, 2024, 04:12:59 PM
The Court literally ruled that he is above the law. Sentencing already postponed ( ;D ;D ;D ) in NY. Took less than 24 hours.
Lotsa sand in Florida to bury your head in.
oh believe me, this could exonerate those who, oh, pulled out of a country leaving who knows how many stranded Americans, billions of dollars worth of military equipment, cost 13 brave soldiers their lives (yes service members lost their lives in the past 3 1/2 years) and allowed Taliban to take over. yes the court probably even exonerates those gained ? millions of dollars in bribes from foreign countries or what ever 10% for the big guy comes out to and didn't even have to pay his "fair share" on. hell, just call it a "biness expense". it might even exonerate those who showered with their daughters too. not sure if it would cover veeps leveling bribes against foreighn countries holding our tax payer money ransom to fire prosecutors though. someone should ask
lotsa sand on the shores of Delaware too
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 03, 2024, 04:37:00 AM
oh believe me, this could exonerate those who, oh, pulled out of a country leaving who knows how many stranded Americans, billions of dollars worth of military equipment, cost 13 brave soldiers their lives (yes service members lost their lives in the past 3 1/2 years) and allowed Taliban to take over. yes the court probably even exonerates those gained ? millions of dollars in bribes from foreign countries or what ever 10% for the big guy comes out to and didn't even have to pay his "fair share" on. hell, just call it a "biness expense". it might even exonerate those who showered with their daughters too. not sure if it would cover veeps leveling bribes against foreighn countries holding our tax payer money ransom to fire prosecutors though. someone should ask
lotsa sand on the shores of Delaware too
8 out of 10
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 03, 2024, 04:37:00 AM
oh believe me, this could exonerate those who, oh, pulled out of a country leaving who knows how many stranded Americans, billions of dollars worth of military equipment, cost 13 brave soldiers their lives (yes service members lost their lives in the past 3 1/2 years) and allowed Taliban to take over. yes the court probably even exonerates those gained ? millions of dollars in bribes from foreign countries or what ever 10% for the big guy comes out to and didn't even have to pay his "fair share" on. hell, just call it a "biness expense". it might even exonerate those who showered with their daughters too. not sure if it would cover veeps leveling bribes against foreighn countries holding our tax payer money ransom to fire prosecutors though. someone should ask
lotsa sand on the shores of Delaware too
So you support the idea of presidential immunity including for Joe Biden?
Quote from: Pakuni on July 03, 2024, 08:26:03 AM
Wake and bake?
Speaking of baking ...
Biden proposes new rule to protect workers from extreme heat; Corporations and Republicans say don't bother.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Tuesday proposed a new rule to address excessive heat in the workplace, warning — as tens of millions of people in the U.S. are under heat advisories — that high temperatures are the country's leading weather-related killer.
If finalized, the measure would protect an estimated 36 million U.S. workers from injuries related to heat exposure on the job — establishing the first major federal safety standard of its kind. Those affected by excessive heat in the workplace include farmworkers, delivery and construction workers, landscapers and indoor workers in warehouses, factories and kitchens.
"More people die from extreme heat than floods, hurricanes and tornadoes combined," Biden said. "These climate fueled extreme weather events don't just affect people's lives. They also cost money. They hurt the economy, and they have a significant negative psychological effect on people."
An estimated 2,300 people in the U.S. died from heat-related illness in 2023. From 1992 to 2022, a total of 986 workers across all industry sectors in the U.S. died from exposure to heat.
California, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota and Washington are the only states with workplace standards for heat exposure. Over the past year, Florida and Texas, led by Gov. Ron DeSantis and Gov. Greg Abbott, both Republicans, passed legislation preventing local governments from requiring heat protections for outdoor workers. Heat protection laws in the U.S. have faced steady industry opposition, including from chambers of commerce and other business associations.
If finalized, the Biden administration's rule would override state standards, and states with existing procedures to deal with heat would have to institute measures at least as stringent as the finalized federal rule.https://apnews.com/article/biden-heatwave-climate-change-deaths-workplace-osha-b70273c6b266a8e3785da1f52c4d1a79
"Screw the workers - let 'em fry! They're mostly in 'Black jobs' and 'Hispanic jobs' anyway. If thousands die while farming crops and building infrastructure for the rest of us, so be it."
Love,
Ronnie D, Greg A & the rest of the All Life Is Precious People
Quote from: Pakuni on July 03, 2024, 08:26:03 AM
Wake and bake?
I'm thinking the Ambien hasn't completely worn off.
After reading the full decision. I am going to change my previous stance. The decision is egregious in giving the President absolute immunity for any actions that are within his "constitutional powers." They went on to very very broadly describe what constitutes "constitutional powers," including absolute immunity for any discussions with his appointed officials, and with their removal, regardless of whether the discussions/removal grossly violate law. That does indeed place the president above the law.
For instance, according to the decision, it would be well within his powers to:
1. Schedule a meeting with military and justice officials, including rank and file military, and order them to assassinate his political opponents, and threaten that they too may be eliminated and their lives ruined if they do not enact his policies. And, in addition to threatening them, bribe them to carry out said actions.
Such an action would be considered lawful, and the President could not be prosecuted for any of those clearly illegal actions, according to the decision, because:
The course may not "deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."
The Presidents "power to remove executive officers of the Unites States whom he has appointed may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts"
Further, the language is clear in providing "exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute" as an official action" that the President can then deem anyone a target of an investigation and "prioritize how aggressively to pursue legal actions against the defendants," including if they see fit to deem them a significant enough threat to be shot on sight.
Any bribes or threats of removal, would be immune under the new guidance in this decision that concludes discussions with military/justice officials, in relation to anything that is an official act (e.g. criminal prosecution involving his opponents being a threat to the nations security) and that vests in his exclusive constitutional authority, are "absolutely immune from prosecution."
Including if they "violate a generally applicable law," like murder and bribery.
I don't think anyone here believes that the above is in anyway remotely consistent with the constitution, and the original ideas of the founding fathers, who greatly feared tyranny, and an overly powerful individual leader.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 03, 2024, 08:26:03 AM
Wake and bake?
(https://s3media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/355/644/9644355.gif)
Maybe the current president will neuter the power of the office of the president.
Quote from: forgetful on July 03, 2024, 09:47:18 AM
After reading the full decision. I am going to change my previous stance.
Thanks for the analysis, you have me reconsidering too. I talked to a JD friend yesterday, but he had not read through it yet either.
Quote from: forgetful on July 03, 2024, 09:47:18 AM
After reading the full decision. I am going to change my previous stance. The decision is egregious in giving the President absolute immunity for any actions that are within his "constitutional powers." They went on to very very broadly describe what constitutes "constitutional powers," including absolute immunity for any discussions with his appointed officials, and with their removal, regardless of whether the discussions/removal grossly violate law. That does indeed place the president above the law.
For instance, according to the decision, it would be well within his powers to:
1. Schedule a meeting with military and justice officials, including rank and file military, and order them to assassinate his political opponents, and threaten that they too may be eliminated and their lives ruined if they do not enact his policies. And, in addition to threatening them, bribe them to carry out said actions.
Such an action would be considered lawful, and the President could not be prosecuted for any of those clearly illegal actions, according to the decision, because:
The course may not "deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."
The Presidents "power to remove executive officers of the Unites States whom he has appointed may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts"
Further, the language is clear in providing "exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute" as an official action" that the President can then deem anyone a target of an investigation and "prioritize how aggressively to pursue legal actions against the defendants," including if they see fit to deem them a significant enough threat to be shot on sight.
Any bribes or threats of removal, would be immune under the new guidance in this decision that concludes discussions with military/justice officials, in relation to anything that is an official act (e.g. criminal prosecution involving his opponents being a threat to the nations security) and that vests in his exclusive constitutional authority, are "absolutely immune from prosecution."
Including if they "violate a generally applicable law," like murder and bribery.
I don't think anyone here believes that the above is in anyway remotely consistent with the constitution, and the original ideas of the founding fathers, who greatly feared tyranny, and an overly powerful individual leader.
Glad you realized this, forgetful. I was surprised by your earlier stance.
It was an outrageous decision that basically makes it legal for one U.S. citizen to commit just about any crime he or she wants to commit.
The R's are celebrating now, but if the situation were reversed - a D ex-president had been charged with these serious crimes and a left-leaning court had said he was immune to prosecution - the R's would be going absolutely batsh!t.
It's like when the D's changed the rules to make only a simple majority necessary for the Senate to confirm a SCOTUS justice. They liked it at the time, but it has come back to bite them on the keister. Be careful what you ask for.
Quote from: forgetful on July 03, 2024, 09:47:18 AM
After reading the full decision. I am going to change my previous stance. The decision is egregious in giving the President absolute immunity for any actions that are within his "constitutional powers." They went on to very very broadly describe what constitutes "constitutional powers," including absolute immunity for any discussions with his appointed officials, and with their removal, regardless of whether the discussions/removal grossly violate law. That does indeed place the president above the law.
For instance, according to the decision, it would be well within his powers to:
1. Schedule a meeting with military and justice officials, including rank and file military, and order them to assassinate his political opponents, and threaten that they too may be eliminated and their lives ruined if they do not enact his policies. And, in addition to threatening them, bribe them to carry out said actions.
Such an action would be considered lawful, and the President could not be prosecuted for any of those clearly illegal actions, according to the decision, because:
The course may not "deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."
The Presidents "power to remove executive officers of the Unites States whom he has appointed may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts"
Further, the language is clear in providing "exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute" as an official action" that the President can then deem anyone a target of an investigation and "prioritize how aggressively to pursue legal actions against the defendants," including if they see fit to deem them a significant enough threat to be shot on sight.
Any bribes or threats of removal, would be immune under the new guidance in this decision that concludes discussions with military/justice officials, in relation to anything that is an official act (e.g. criminal prosecution involving his opponents being a threat to the nations security) and that vests in his exclusive constitutional authority, are "absolutely immune from prosecution."
Including if they "violate a generally applicable law," like murder and bribery.
I don't think anyone here believes that the above is in anyway remotely consistent with the constitution, and the original ideas of the founding fathers, who greatly feared tyranny, and an overly powerful individual leader.
A couple of points.
1. I don't think the "Above the Law" argument works here because for the Supreme Court - and especially this Supreme Court - the Constitution is the ultimate law. The ruling essentially is "The Constitution says the president has authority to do X, and therefore X can't be against the law because the Constitution is the law."
Contrary arguments are suggesting that "This says the president is above the law because he's using his lawful authority."
2. Perhaps I need to brush up on Article II, but I'm not sure the scenarios you lay out here would necessarily be immune, much less carried out.
For one, murder of a political rival would be an unlawful order that members of the military are legally required to refuse.
Second, no less authority than Trump's own attorneys have argued that the president's military authority does not extend to murder or the assassination of political rivals.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303384/20240319133828340_AFPI%20Amici%20Brief%203.19.24.pdf
Third, the Fifth Amendment states that no citizen "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." A political assassination is an obvious violation of that, and Article II requires that a president "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So, I question gthat a clear violation of the Constitution would be deemed "an official act" of the presidency.
To be clear, I think this is a terrible ruling, but not because it says "the president can murder." It doesn't actually say that. It's terrible because it doesn't conclusively say that the president can't murder nor provide much clear guidance (outside of Barrett's concurrence) of what are and are not official acts.
Pak is correct from my reading as well. Bad facts make bad law.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 03, 2024, 10:30:08 AM
A couple of points.
1. I don't think the "Above the Law" argument works here because for the Supreme Court - and especially this Supreme Court - the Constitution is the ultimate law. The ruling essentially is "The Constitution says the president has authority to do X, and therefore X can't be against the law because the Constitution is the law."
Contrary arguments are suggesting that "This says the president is above the law because he's using his lawful authority."
2. Perhaps I need to brush up on Article II, but I'm not sure the scenarios you lay out here would necessarily be immune, much less carried out.
For one, murder of a political rival would be an unlawful order that members of the military are legally required to refuse.
Second, no less authority than Trump's own attorneys have argued that the president's military authority does not extend to murder or the assassination of political rivals.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303384/20240319133828340_AFPI%20Amici%20Brief%203.19.24.pdf
Third, the Fifth Amendment states that no citizen "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." A political assassination is an obvious violation of that, and Article II requires that a president "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So, I question gthat a clear violation of the Constitution would be deemed "an official act" of the presidency.
To be clear, I think this is a terrible ruling, but not because it says "the president can murder." It doesn't actually say that. It's terrible because it doesn't conclusively say that the president can't murder nor provide much clear guidance (outside of Barrett's concurrence) of what are and are not official acts.
I think the vagueness is intentional because there wasn't a specific case based on facts brought to the court.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 03, 2024, 10:30:08 AM
A couple of points.
1. I don't think the "Above the Law" argument works here because for the Supreme Court - and especially this Supreme Court - the Constitution is the ultimate law. The ruling essentially is "The Constitution says the president has authority to do X, and therefore X can't be against the law because the Constitution is the law."
Contrary arguments are suggesting that "This says the president is above the law because he's using his lawful authority."
2. Perhaps I need to brush up on Article II, but I'm not sure the scenarios you lay out here would necessarily be immune, much less carried out.
For one, murder of a political rival would be an unlawful order that members of the military are legally required to refuse.
Second, no less authority than Trump's own attorneys have argued that the president's military authority does not extend to murder or the assassination of political rivals.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303384/20240319133828340_AFPI%20Amici%20Brief%203.19.24.pdf
Third, the Fifth Amendment states that no citizen "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." A political assassination is an obvious violation of that, and Article II requires that a president "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So, I question gthat a clear violation of the Constitution would be deemed "an official act" of the presidency.
To be clear, I think this is a terrible ruling, but not because it says "the president can murder." It doesn't actually say that. It's terrible because it doesn't conclusively say that the president can't murder nor provide much clear guidance (outside of Barrett's concurrence) of what are and are not official acts.
The reasons I would disagree with your thoughts (which I think are reasonable) are as follows. And remember, I am not an attorney, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
1. Your point is correct. They are saying that such actions are consistent with the constitutional authority given to the President.
2. The Military officials carrying out the actions could be tried and convicted,
but the President could not, especially if the discussion was that this was a "Criminal Investigation" and that the subjects were deemed extremely dangerous to warrant considering them immediate dangers and supporting possible shoot on sight. The ruling clearly articulates that any discussion, whether involving illegal actions or not, that pertain to "criminal investigations" are within the constitutionally protected scope of the President and confers absolute immunity. That immunity does not convey to the individuals that may carry out said actions, but the decision reiterates that Presidential Pardon's are absolutely protected.
3. There is nuance here. Meeting with said individuals and ordering them to assassinate his rivals would be illegal as you say (but according to Trump's attorneys immune from prosecution unless impeached and convicted by the Senate). But meeting with the same said individuals and saying their actions amount to treason (see Elizabeth Cheney) and that they need to be aggressively investigated and prosecuted immediately, while also deeming them exceptionally armed and dangerous to warrant them an immediate threat to all around them (and possibly warranting shot on sight), would be protected by this decision. As would threatening removal from their post/office for any individuals that refused his decisions, and even extending to bribery.
The reason it would be permitted actually pertains to the exact clauses you identify. This decision says it is the President's constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law with "exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute."
Your arguments that these are illegal actions are moot with respect to charging the President (they are not moot to charging those that carry out the actions), as the Decision states, "The courts may not "deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law," and gives exceptionally broad discretion to the President to act within what they view as upholding and protecting the constitution.
My examples are extreme, but consistent with the decision.
And for the record, Trump's attorneys did say in Oral arguments, that if a President ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate their rivals, they would be immune to prosecution, even after leaving office (via losing an election or resigning). They could only be prosecuted if impeached and convicted by the Senate. And that is for a direct order of assassination.
Quote from: forgetful on July 03, 2024, 11:29:00 AM
And for the record, Trump's attorneys did say in Oral arguments, that if a President ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate their rivals, they would be immune to prosecution, even after leaving office (via losing an election or resigning). They could only be prosecuted if impeached and convicted by the Senate. And that is for a direct order of assassination.
Unfortunately, no time right now for a long response, but this issue is addressed (and corrected) in the amicus brief I linked earlier.
Here is a thorough, easy-to-read guide on the ins and outs of the SCOTUS ruling:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/07/02/official-act-trump-immunity-trial-judge/?
I just read it twice, and it was very informative. It also doesn't change my mind that this was an outrageous ruling that gives presidents far more power than the founders intended.
Quote from: MU82 on July 03, 2024, 12:54:47 PM
Here is a thorough, easy-to-read guide on the ins and outs of the SCOTUS ruling:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/07/02/official-act-trump-immunity-trial-judge/?
I just read it twice, and it was very informative. It also doesn't change my mind that this was an outrageous ruling that gives presidents far more power than the founders intended.
Since when do libs give an F about the founders.
Quote from: murara1994 on July 03, 2024, 01:20:57 PM
Since when do libs give an F about the founders.
Psst ... the Founders were libs.
Quote from: murara1994 on July 03, 2024, 01:20:57 PM
Since when do libs give an F about the founders.
I'll assume you forgot teal.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 01, 2024, 12:11:04 AM
For those wondering, Heisy did not write this. He stole it from Spike Cohen and presented it without credit to try and make himself appear smart. If you don't remember Spike Cohen, he ran as a vice presidential candidate on the same ticket as Vermin Supreme, a performance artist known for wearing a boot on his head. He later dumped Vermin for Jo Jennings, the 2020 Libertarian presidential candidate.
https://x.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1807513128479150478
I'm not going to go line by line, but I will mention the biggest omission in Heisy's plagiarism is the word "reasonable" before "interpretation". Chevron did give a lot of power to agencies but there were limits on it that the judiciary could enforce. Agencies' regulations could and regularly were challenged in court and the judiciary had the power to (and regularly did) reign in agencies when they overstepped. Spike/Heisy tried to make it sound like agencies were just making things up with no limits when that wasn't the case (I mean seriously. Spike compares it to being arrested with no judge or jury when judges literally could stop agencies who overstepped their mandates).
And Heisy, I know you are trying to make yourself seem smart by criticizing the use of the term chevron doctrine. Chevron deference is a doctrine and Chevron deference is often shortened to just Chevron.
(https://c.tenor.com/0QKXzZGc8mQAAAAC/tenor.gif)
Quote from: murara1994 on July 03, 2024, 01:20:57 PM
Since when do libs give an F about the founders.
I'd probably direct you to The Federalist Papers on this particular matter. The role of the executive was thoroughly discussed when the constitution was penned. The role of the executive have evolved quite dramatically since then. Honestly, both sides should want an executive that isn't above the law and acts more like what was envisioned versus what it is today.
Furthermore, I'd probably read biographies on the executives that held the office between the end of the civil war and the assassination of William McKinley and compare them to the presidencies of your lifetime. It's a fascinating and telling dichotomy of how the position has been interpreted with regards to the principles of our founding fathers.
As for caring about the founders, I'd say the founders would agree modeling a government solely based on 1790 America in 2024 is ridiculous. The founders would be appalled by both the left and right of modern America, imo, largely because 99% of America couldn't begin to remotely articulate what the founding fathers thought.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 03, 2024, 11:56:44 AM
Unfortunately, no time right now for a long response, but this issue is addressed (and corrected) in the amicus brief I linked earlier.
I'll take your word for this, I didn't read the entire amicus brief, and this is far more your arena than mine.
I will reiterate thought, that a thorough reading of the decision created a roadmap to legally executing tyrannous actions that the whole nation was founded to avoid.
Washingon, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Mason, Henry, and the rest of the Virginia Founding fathers would be anti DEI for...reasons though
Quote from: Plaque Lives Matter! on July 03, 2024, 02:21:42 PM
Washingon, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Mason, Henry, and the rest of the Virginia Founding fathers would be anti DEI for...reasons though
Jefferson was a big fan of diversity.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 01, 2024, 09:09:11 PM
Indeed. Gotcha. I do think the idea of a "supreme court" is flawed.
Yes, especially how they are chosen, and what their role should be. Marbury vs Madison started us down this path in 1803.
The system was supposed to have checks and balances, but there is no balance nor check to the SCOTUS.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 03, 2024, 10:30:08 AM
A couple of points.
1. I don't think the "Above the Law" argument works here because for the Supreme Court - and especially this Supreme Court - the Constitution is the ultimate law. The ruling essentially is "The Constitution says the president has authority to do X, and therefore X can't be against the law because the Constitution is the law."
Contrary arguments are suggesting that "This says the president is above the law because he's using his lawful authority."
2. Perhaps I need to brush up on Article II, but I'm not sure the scenarios you lay out here would necessarily be immune, much less carried out.
For one, murder of a political rival would be an unlawful order that members of the military are legally required to refuse.
Second, no less authority than Trump's own attorneys have argued that the president's military authority does not extend to murder or the assassination of political rivals.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303384/20240319133828340_AFPI%20Amici%20Brief%203.19.24.pdf
Third, the Fifth Amendment states that no citizen "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." A political assassination is an obvious violation of that, and Article II requires that a president "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So, I question gthat a clear violation of the Constitution would be deemed "an official act" of the presidency.
To be clear, I think this is a terrible ruling, but not because it says "the president can murder." It doesn't actually say that. It's terrible because it doesn't conclusively say that the president can't murder nor provide much clear guidance (outside of Barrett's concurrence) of what are and are not official acts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
Quote from: Hards Alumni on July 03, 2024, 03:05:11 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
(https://global.discourse-cdn.com/trainerroad/original/3X/e/c/ec88c901c33540947c7b315a53286f8d1a895ab4.png)
Quote from: Pakuni on July 03, 2024, 03:12:37 PM
(https://global.discourse-cdn.com/trainerroad/original/3X/e/c/ec88c901c33540947c7b315a53286f8d1a895ab4.png)
American citizen assassinated by a sitting President. ;D
Quote from: Hards Alumni on July 03, 2024, 03:16:15 PM
American citizen assassinated by a sitting President. ;D
Or, foreign-based terrorist linked to multiple attacks on Americans, publicly encouraged the killing of Americans and who was formally declared a military enemy of the U.S. through official means, making him not subject to the ban on assasinations.
Pretty much the exact same thing as Trump ordering the murder of Mitt Romney.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 03, 2024, 03:23:45 PM
Or, foreign-based terrorist linked to multiple attacks on Americans, publicly encouraged the killing of Americans and who was formally declared a military enemy of the U.S. through official means, making him not subject to the ban on assasinations.
Pretty much the exact same thing as Trump ordering the murder of Mitt Romney.
It was an extra judicial murder, was it not?
I'm clearly, just playing the semantics game, but indulge me.
Quote from: jesmu84 on July 03, 2024, 07:11:12 AM
So you support the idea of presidential immunity including for Joe Biden?
yes and no
i do believe more reasoned and thoughtful heads should prevail here as it's really meant to be interpreted
Quote from: Hards Alumni on July 03, 2024, 03:41:24 PM
It was an extra judicial murder, was it not?
I'm clearly, just playing the semantics game, but indulge me.
Well, speaking of semantics, I suppose the answer to your questions depends on how you define extrajudical. Webster defines it as "a) not forming a valid part of regular legal proceedings, b) delivered without legal authority.
In this case, at least to my understanding, the administration followed the proscribed legal process for declaring a citizen a military enemy and approving his killing through the National Security Council. So, assuming that's true, it does seem legal authority existed.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 03, 2024, 03:50:37 PM
Well, speaking of semantics, I suppose the answer to your questions depends on how you define extrajudical. Webster defines it as "a) not forming a valid part of regular legal proceedings, b) delivered without legal authority.
In this case, at least to my understanding, the administration followed the proscribed legal process for declaring a citizen a military enemy and approving his killing through the National Security Council. So, assuming that's true, it does seem legal authority existed.
The Executive Branch did this? What are the grounds? What are the legal processes defined in the constitution that allow for this?
Quote from: Hards Alumni on July 03, 2024, 03:52:01 PM
The Executive Branch did this? What are the grounds? What are the legal processes defined in the constitution that allow for this?
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1192-36 (https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1192-36)
Quote from: lawdog77 on July 03, 2024, 03:57:46 PM
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1192-36 (https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1192-36)
Okay, so because the President (and his DOJ by extension and memorandum) said he could be put on a 'kill list', that it was legal that a US citizen wasn't afforded his 5th amendment constitutional right? No trial, extrajudicial murder, just okey dokey it's war, and the executive branch can do what it wants!
I think you're proving my point.
Also, I can't believe you made me read all of that. Cruel.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 03, 2024, 02:13:54 PM
I'd probably direct you to The Federalist Papers on this particular matter. The role of the executive was thoroughly discussed when the constitution was penned. The role of the executive have evolved quite dramatically since then. Honestly, both sides should want an executive that isn't above the law and acts more like what was envisioned versus what it is today.
Furthermore, I'd probably read biographies on the executives that held the office between the end of the civil war and the assassination of William McKinley and compare them to the presidencies of your lifetime. It's a fascinating and telling dichotomy of how the position has been interpreted with regards to the principles of our founding fathers.
As for caring about the founders, I'd say the founders would agree modeling a government solely based on 1790 America in 2024 is ridiculous. The founders would be appalled by both the left and right of modern America, imo, largely because 99% of America couldn't begin to remotely articulate what the founding fathers thought.
This is perhaps your best work. And your conclusion saddens me. Maybe require passing a history exam before one can register on a social media account?
Quote from: Sir Lawrence on July 03, 2024, 07:58:41 PM
This is perhaps your best work. And your conclusion saddens me. Maybe require passing a history exam before one can register on a social media account?
I don't think (outside of misinterpreting studies and statistics) there is a more absurd display of lacking intellect, critical thinking, and compete naivety on social media than history. You'll see a complete whiff on historical fact or interpretation of something historical and 90% of the responses are agreeing or some emotional response and the few accurate corrections get buried or ignored.
The other day I saw a tweet about how disgusting the Belgians were cause they sell chocolate hands...which is celebrating how the Belgians gleefully cut off native hands in Africa, and they still celebrate it to this day. It had 10s of thousands of likes. The thread was full of people agreeing how horrible and disturbing it is...the one person who said "umm, guys, it's actually based on Antwerp folklore and it's actually an evil giant's hand" basically got ignored.
Quote from: JWags85 on July 03, 2024, 08:41:08 PM
I don't think (outside of misinterpreting studies and statistics) there is a more absurd display of lacking intellect, critical thinking, and compete naivety on social media than history. You'll see a complete whiff on historical fact or interpretation of something historical and 90% of the responses are agreeing or some emotional response and the few accurate corrections get buried or ignored.
The other day I saw a tweet about how disgusting the Belgians were cause they sell chocolate hands...which is celebrating how the Belgians gleefully cut off native hands in Africa, and they still celebrate it to this day. It had 10s of thousands of likes. The thread was full of people agreeing how horrible and disturbing it is...the one person who said "umm, guys, it's actually based on Antwerp folklore and it's actually an evil giant's hand" basically got ignored.
Yeah there's plenty of actual Belgian atrocities to be mad at, we don't need to make them up like that. Important to vet sources and stats!
Quote from: Sir Lawrence on July 03, 2024, 07:58:41 PM
This is perhaps your best work. And your conclusion saddens me. Maybe require passing a history exam before one can register on a social media account? serve as president, senator or congressperson?
FIFY
We need a Belgium hate thread.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 04, 2024, 08:15:24 AM
We need a Belgium hate thread.
Their beer sucks and "In Bruges" is overrated.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 04, 2024, 08:17:51 AM
Their beer sucks and "In Bruges" is overrated.
Loved "In Bruges."
Quote from: MU82 on July 03, 2024, 10:04:38 AM
It's like when the D's changed the rules to make only a simple majority necessary for the Senate to confirm a SCOTUS justice. They liked it at the time, but it has come back to bite them on the keister. Be careful what you ask for.
82, you usually get these correct.
Democrats in the Senate switched to simple majority for confirming judges but exempted Supreme Court votes.
The Republicans changed to simple majority for Supreme Justices so they could vote Niel Gorsuch in.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 04, 2024, 08:15:24 AM
We need a Belgium hate thread.
A made up country that's half French and half Dutch. And the French portion kinda sucks.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on July 04, 2024, 08:21:53 AM
82, you usually get these correct.
Democrats in the Senate switched to simple majority for confirming judges but exempted Supreme Court votes.
The Republicans changed to simple majority for Supreme Justices so they could vote Niel Gorsuch in.
Yes, correct. The D's set the precedent, and the R's expanded it. Thanks for the correction.
McConnell was laser-focused on pushing courts everywhere as far right as possible, and took advantage of rules making it easier to do so. SCOTUS is out front, so everybody knows about it, but McConnell got hundreds of young right-wing judges installed on federal benches. It will be his enduring legacy.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 03, 2024, 03:50:37 PM
Well, speaking of semantics, I suppose the answer to your questions depends on how you define extrajudical. Webster defines it as "a) not forming a valid part of regular legal proceedings, b) delivered without legal authority.
In this case, at least to my understanding, the administration followed the proscribed legal process for declaring a citizen a military enemy and approving his killing through the National Security Council. So, assuming that's true, it does seem legal authority existed.
Pakuni, the point is (and you address this at the end), and it coincides with my scenario, is that there are legitimate legal processes that would be considered "official presidential actions" that would place a US citizen on the "kill list." The Supreme Court's have perviously (although not officially ruled on it, just referenced it in other cases) supported this authority.
That means, a President can now lawfully, based on the Supreme Court ruling, place political Enemy's on kill lists simply by working with his appointed officials (who he now has full authority to threaten, remove, and bribe), by going through the process of making them enemies of the state, which is what I outlined in my extreme scenario.
We no longer have laws to protect us from this, we just have to hope that the President is not such an evil and vindictive person.
Quote from: forgetful on July 04, 2024, 09:17:18 AM
Pakuni, the point is (and you address this at the end), and it coincides with my scenario, is that there are legitimate legal processes that would be considered "official presidential actions" that would place a US citizen on the "kill list." The Supreme Court's have perviously (although not officially ruled on it, just referenced it in other cases) supported this authority.
That means, a President can now lawfully, based on the Supreme Court ruling, place political Enemy's on kill lists simply by working with his appointed officials (who he now has full authority to threaten, remove, and bribe), by going through the process of making them enemies of the state, which is what I outlined in my extreme scenario.
We no longer have laws to protect us from this, we just have to hope that the President is not such an evil and vindictive person.
Lay off the crack.
Quote from: lawdog77 on July 04, 2024, 09:57:35 AM
Lay off the crack.
Explain to me where in the document you provided outlining the legal process to having US citizens added to a kill list, that doesn't involve official presidential actions involving his appointed officials.
Quote from: forgetful on July 04, 2024, 09:17:18 AM
Pakuni, the point is (and you address this at the end), and it coincides with my scenario, is that there are legitimate legal processes that would be considered "official presidential actions" that would place a US citizen on the "kill list." The Supreme Court's have perviously (although not officially ruled on it, just referenced it in other cases) supported this authority.
That means, a President can now lawfully, based on the Supreme Court ruling, place political Enemy's on kill lists simply by working with his appointed officials (who he now has full authority to threaten, remove, and bribe), by going through the process of making them enemies of the state, which is what I outlined in my extreme scenario.
We no longer have laws to protect us from this, we just have to hope that the President is not such an evil and vindictive person.
Well, for starters, the Supreme Court decision doesn't do what you lay out above. Because everything you say above was possible last week. A president has always had the power to work with his appointed officials to declare a person a military enemy. Obama did it!
None of this has changed. And what laws existed to protect us from this still exist.
What's changed is the Court saying that,
depending on the circumstances, the president - and only the president - might be immune from criminal prosecution after the fact.
Your scenario assumes that everyone else who would need to sign off on this, from the NSC, to the generals to the DOJ, would all go agree to at the risk of being prosecuted for murder ... because it might cost them their jobs? That seems highly unlikely to me.
But even if that were true, you're making a false assumption that ordering the assassination of one's political opponents on American soil would be deemed an "official act" under the Constitution. I've already laid out why that's not likely.
And a president has always had the ability to hire political appointees and fire them if they don't enact his policies. A boss firing an at-will employee for not doing his/her job the way the boss wants it done is not, and never has been, illegal.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 04, 2024, 08:15:24 AM
We need a Belgium hate thread.
Without a shadow of a doubt, the country with the WORST weather on the planet. A climate that makes the stereotypical rain and gloom of the UK look like Ibiza.
A number of years ago, Antwerp had new parking meters that were solar powered in a big EU green push. They had to redo the battery backups cause they literally didn't get enough sun to function.
Quote from: forgetful on July 04, 2024, 09:17:18 AM
making them enemies of the state
Given that the previous president has called numerous folks "enemies of the state" - including Powell, Pence, Liz Cheney, Biden, Obama, Clinton and Pelosi - this is troubling.
Quote from: forgetful on July 04, 2024, 09:17:18 AM
we just have to hope that the President is not such an evil and vindictive person.
See my previous sentence.
After the decision President Biden stated we do not have Kings in this country. I disagree. We have hundreds if not thousands of Kings and/or Queens: They're called Prosecutors all who have qualified immunity. I find it odd that the minority Justices did not want to apply that principle to our Presidents.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 04, 2024, 01:02:48 PM
After the decision President Biden stated we do not have Kings in this country. I disagree. We have hundreds if not thousands of Kings and/or Queens: They're called Prosecutors all who have qualified immunity. I find it odd that the minority Justices did not want to apply that principle to our Presidents.
lol
Quote from: MU82 on July 04, 2024, 07:26:02 AM
FIFY
Didn't need to be fixed. Traitors should not be allowed to be president. Rapists should not be allowed to be president. Coup leaders should not be allowed to be president.
Reading through this thread, I simply see an exercise in silliness with all of the analysis. We have history with this guy. He has never been held accountable for anything (and never will - SCOTUS will eventually declare Jack Smith's role to be illegal so as to protect trump). Trump sees this ruling as permission for anything and everything - and if he gets elected no one else's opinion will matter. No matter what heinous thing he doers, he has the protection of SCOTUS and the MAGAts.
Bottom line? If trump gets in office again, he will be president for life. Before you laugh (collective 'you' - not you, Mike) and mock me, make sure you weren't one of the ones who laughed in 2018 when I was the 1st person on Scoop to say trump would not leave if he lost in 2020.
Thank you Onion.
https://www.theonion.com/new-trump-ad-shows-montage-of-people-he-ll-kill-if-elec-1851573199
New Trump Ad Shows Montage Of People He'll Kill If Elected
PHOENIX—Following this week's landmark Supreme Court ruling granting presidents broad immunity against criminal prosecution for official acts, Donald Trump's campaign released an ad Wednesday that consists solely of a montage of people he will have killed if elected in November. The largely silent ad, which will reportedly air in battleground states across the country, features a sequence of headshots depicting politicians, former Trump White House officials, journalists, and seemingly random average Americans with big red X's over their faces and the caption "These People Will Be Dead The Moment I Take Power." With its images of hundreds of people—including current President Joe Biden, former Attorney General William Barr, former Rep. Liz Cheney, Kim Kardashian, Dale and Linda McPherson of Logansport, IN, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg—the video was being viewed as a political masterstroke that highlights the former president's vision for retributive bloodshed starting on Day 1 of his second term. At press time, Trump's campaign announced that any critics of the ad would be featured in subsequent versions of the television spot
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 04, 2024, 01:02:48 PM
After the decision President Biden stated we do not have Kings in this country. I disagree. We have hundreds if not thousands of Kings and/or Queens: They're called Prosecutors all who have qualified immunity. I find it odd that the minority Justices did not want to apply that principle to our Presidents.
Tell me you don't know what qualified means without telling me you don't know what qualified immunity means.
Quote from: Jockey on July 04, 2024, 01:12:47 PM
I was the 1st person on Scoop to say trump would not leave if he lost in 2020.
And you were wrong, Jockey. President Biden was inaugurated on the scheduled date and took office.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 04, 2024, 01:45:56 PM
And you were wrong, Jockey. President Biden was inaugurated on the scheduled date and took office.
Luckily, 45 didn't attempt to overthrow that election and was a graceful loser that put country ahead of ego
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on July 04, 2024, 08:21:53 AM
82, you usually get these correct.
Democrats in the Senate switched to simple majority for confirming judges but exempted Supreme Court votes.
The Republicans changed to simple majority for Supreme Justices so they could vote Niel Gorsuch in.
Yes, but what is the "rule" now? Let's say a Democrat is sworn in as president next January. Then in February Justice Thomas passes away. If there is a Republican senate majority, do you think for one moment that the nominee would even get a hearing? Now flip the script and contemplate what would happen to a Republican nominee with a Democratic senate majority. Maybe a better chance that the nomination would go through since the Democrats have a tendency to adhere to norms, but not 100%. I'm thinking 50% to 75% chance or so. The new "rule" is that only when he has a majority in the senate can a president place a nominee on the Supreme Court. Four full years (or more) without a full Supreme Court? It could happen.
Quote from: Jockey on July 04, 2024, 01:12:47 PM
Didn't need to be fixed. Traitors should not be allowed to be president. Rapists should not be allowed to be president. Coup leaders should not be allowed to be president.
Reading through this thread, I simply see an exercise in silliness with all of the analysis. We have history with this guy. He has never been held accountable for anything (and never will - SCOTUS will eventually declare Jack Smith's role to be illegal so as to protect trump). Trump sees this ruling as permission for anything and everything - and if he gets elected no one else's opinion will matter. No matter what heinous thing he doers, he has the protection of SCOTUS and the MAGAts.
Bottom line? If trump gets in office again, he will be president for life. Before you laugh (collective 'you' - not you, Mike) and mock me, make sure you weren't one of the ones who laughed in 2018 when I was the 1st person on Scoop to say trump would not leave if he lost in 2020.
And you claim others are being silly?
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on July 04, 2024, 02:12:45 PM
And you claim others are being silly?
What part of what he said would skew improbable based on the constitutionally untethered decisions of the Supreme Court?
Quote from: GB Warrior on July 04, 2024, 02:25:56 PM
What part of what he said would skew improbable based on the constitutionally untethered decisions of the Supreme Court?
I dislike Trump as much as most AND some of you constitutional scholars have become unhinged. If he is elected, he would not be allowed to murder his rivals nor would he be able to rewrite the rules to stay longer in office.
Quote from: GB Warrior on July 04, 2024, 02:25:56 PM
What part of what he said would skew improbable based on the constitutionally untethered decisions of the Supreme Court?
"Bottom line? If trump gets in office again, he will be president for life."
Unless he dies in office before January 2029 or the Constitution is amended, that won't happen. Total nonsense.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 04, 2024, 01:45:56 PM
And you were wrong, Jockey. President Biden was inaugurated on the scheduled date and took office.
President Biden's predecessor tried every illegal, unconstitutional trick in the book to stay. He participated in the fake electors scheme. And he called in his terrorists (Ted Cruz's word) to stage a violent coup attempt on his behalf, sitting there smiling as they bashed in cops' heads. Pence wasn't a willing accomplice, though, foiling Dementia Don's attempt to subvert democracy.
So congrats, Lenny, you're "right"!
BTW, Dementia Don has already been "joking" on the campaign trail about a third term starting in 2029.
Quote from: GB Warrior on July 04, 2024, 02:25:56 PM
What part of what he said would skew improbable based on the constitutionally untethered decisions of the Supreme Court?
Look, I'm no fan of the court's recent decisions. They're vague, sow legal chaos, at times based on faulty - if not outright false - premises (see: Creative LLC; see also: Kennedy v Bremerton) and often ideologically driven.
But nothing in the court's decisions suggest they will abruptly declare the 22nd Amendment null and void.
And the notion that "he has the protection of SCOTUS" doesn't square with the fact the court repeatedly refused to even hear numerous cases attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on July 04, 2024, 02:46:44 PM
"Bottom line? If trump gets in office again, he will be president for life."
Unless he dies in office before January 2029 or the Constitution is amended, that won't happen. Total nonsense.
kinda like Hussein then eyn'a?
Quote from: Jockey on July 04, 2024, 01:12:47 PM
Didn't need to be fixed. Traitors should not be allowed to be president. Rapists should not be allowed to be president. Coup leaders should not be allowed to be president.
Reading through this thread, I simply see an exercise in silliness with all of the analysis. We have history with this guy. He has never been held accountable for anything (and never will - SCOTUS will eventually declare Jack Smith's role to be illegal so as to protect trump). Trump sees this ruling as permission for anything and everything - and if he gets elected no one else's opinion will matter. No matter what heinous thing he doers, he has the protection of SCOTUS and the MAGAts.
Bottom line? If trump gets in office again, he will be president for life. Before you laugh (collective 'you' - not you, Mike) and mock me, make sure you weren't one of the ones who laughed in 2018 when I was the 1st person on Scoop to say trump would not leave if he lost in 2020.
ease up on the MSNBC man, whoooeee loosen up the under britches a little bit and get some air down there to the gray matter
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 04, 2024, 06:56:41 PM
kinda like Hussein then eyn'a?
(https://play-lh.googleusercontent.com/fgnSlbKAEiKk4-4WgbXC1bR3uPzrIeNUaVqvBrxOrn0HUOTNDYqnTqJwkF8EsAuDFVE)
Non Compete ban put on pause. This is a helpful development for the business community.
https://thehill.com/business/4754810-federal-judge-blocks-noncompete-ban/mlite/?nxs-test=mlite
Quote from: Pakuni on July 04, 2024, 03:49:47 PM
Look, I'm no fan of the court's recent decisions. They're vague, sow legal chaos, at times based on faulty - if not outright false - premises (see: Creative LLC; see also: Kennedy v Bremerton) and often ideologically driven.
But nothing in the court's decisions suggest they will abruptly declare the 22nd Amendment null and void.
And the notion that "he has the protection of SCOTUS" doesn't square with the fact the court repeatedly refused to even hear numerous cases attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
Pakuni, don't you think the Republicans and the Supreme Court can get creative? I mean look at the immunity decision. You won't find any support for it in the text of the Constitution. Yet, there it is in black and white, the Supreme Court gives a wide berth to the President just because it can. They were not asked to rule on future Presidents were they? They were presented with the specific question of whether Donald Trump can claim immunity for his actions. Why did they go and rule on the immunity of future Presidents when they were not required to do so? Have we had such a major issue with immunity before? No, but they went out of their way to rule in a way that benefits Trump. That should trouble you if for no other reason that this is now on the books for future Presidents to abuse (forget Trump for a moment).
Now contemplate 22nd Amendment:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"
I can see a few ways around this, can't you?
Quote from: SoCalEagle on July 05, 2024, 12:35:32 AM
Pakuni, don't you think the Republicans and the Supreme Court can get creative? I mean look at the immunity decision. You won't find any support for it in the text of the Constitution. Yet, there it is in black and white, the Supreme Court gives a wide berth to the President just because it can. They were not asked to rule on future Presidents were they? They were presented with the specific question of whether Donald Trump can claim immunity for his actions. Why did they go and rule on the immunity of future Presidents when they were not required to do so? Have we had such a major issue with immunity before? No, but they went out of their way to rule in a way that benefits Trump. That should trouble you if for no other reason that this is now on the books for future Presidents to abuse (forget Trump for a moment).
Now contemplate 22nd Amendment:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"
I can see a few ways around this, can't you?
No actually. There is enough reason to feel this ruling is problematic, but people need to stop using tin foil hat nonsense.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/former-brazilian-president-jair-bolsonaro-indicted-federal-police-undeclared-diamonds-case-ap.amp
The way this third world country handles corrupt politicians sickens me. Trying to hold a former president accountable for his crimes? Wouldn't happen in America!
😚
Quote from: SoCalEagle on July 05, 2024, 12:35:32 AM
Pakuni, don't you think the Republicans and the Supreme Court can get creative? I mean look at the immunity decision. You won't find any support for it in the text of the Constitution.
Curious as to what makes you say this. I would argue that the court is broadly interpreting Article II - too broadly, IMO - to come to its conclusion.
QuoteYet, there it is in black and white, the Supreme Court gives a wide berth to the President just because it can. They were not asked to rule on future Presidents were they? They were presented with the specific question of whether Donald Trump can claim immunity for his actions. Why did they go and rule on the immunity of future Presidents when they were not required to do so?
I think this kind of overlooks what the Supreme Court does. The court is asked to rule on specific cases, but its rulings (in theory) set precedent for future cases presenting similar facts and circumstances. Brown v Board of Education was filed against one specific school district, but the ruling impacted schools nationwide. NY Times v Sullivan concerned one item published by one newspaper, but the decision established precedent for future libel and defamation cases involving every media outlet across the country. So on and so forth.
QuoteHave we had such a major issue with immunity before?
Well, no, because we've never had a former or current president formally charged with committing crimes in office.
That said, granting presidents immunity is not new. Nixon v Fitzgerald, which Roberts cites often in his Trump ruling, granted presidents total immunity from civil liability for official acts. The Trump ruling, at its essence, extends that decision to cover criminal prosecution in the way Fitzgerald addresses civil liability.
Immunity for public officials is not a new concept. Your mayor, your cops, the principal at your kids' school, the local prosecutor ... all of them have some level of immunity from criminal or civil prosecution. It's almost certainly qualified - and IMO that should be the case for presidents as well - but the legal precedent for government officials receiving immunity is well established.
Quote
Now contemplate 22nd Amendment:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"
I can see a few ways around this, can't you?
I mean, not without a coup. But I don't see how this particular court decision impacts that.
"But Pakuni, Trump could attempt a coup without fear of prosecution."
Disagree, because I find it unlikely any court would rule that launching a coup in obvious violation of the Constitution would be ruled an official act of the presidency.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 05, 2024, 07:30:50 AM
Disagree, because I find it unlikely any court would rule that launching a coup in obvious violation of the Constitution would be ruled an official act of the presidency.
President Trump literally tried to launch a coup in obvious violation of the Constitution and this court granted him immunity for that.
Are people just memory holing January 6? We literally watched treason and an attempted sabotage on our democracy on live TV and are acting like the same person won't try to find a way to never leave office? When he's already talked about a third term because his first was stolen?
He has proven he will do anything to hold that office forever and has a Supreme Court that will enable him to do whatever. And if he wins, that would likely come with a Senate majority that would let him further ensconce this Supreme Court majority with even more extreme nutjobs like Matthew Kacsmaryk and James Ho.
But hey, could never happen here, right? ::)
Quote from: SoCalEagle on July 05, 2024, 12:35:32 AM
Pakuni, don't you think the Republicans and the Supreme Court can get creative? I mean look at the immunity decision. You won't find any support for it in the text of the Constitution. Yet, there it is in black and white, the Supreme Court gives a wide berth to the President just because it can. They were not asked to rule on future Presidents were they? They were presented with the specific question of whether Donald Trump can claim immunity for his actions. Why did they go and rule on the immunity of future Presidents when they were not required to do so? Have we had such a major issue with immunity before? No, but they went out of their way to rule in a way that benefits Trump. That should trouble you if for no other reason that this is now on the books for future Presidents to abuse (forget Trump for a moment).
Now contemplate 22nd Amendment:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"
I can see a few ways around this, can't you?
That's leaving out a lot of important language from the 22nd Amendment.
QuoteAmendment XXII (1951)
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 05, 2024, 07:53:49 AM
President Trump literally tried to launch a coup in obvious violation of the Constitution and this court granted him immunity for that.
No, it doesn't.
People seem overly eager to project their own narrative and fears on this ruling without actually reading and understanding it.
QuoteHe has proven he will do anything to hold that office forever and has a Supreme Court that will enable him to do whatever.
The same Supreme Court that rejected every single case that tried ro alter/overturn 2020 election results, yes?
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 05, 2024, 07:53:49 AM
President Trump literally tried to launch a coup in obvious violation of the Constitution and this court granted him immunity for that.
Are people just memory holing January 6? We literally watched treason and an attempted sabotage on our democracy on live TV and are acting like the same person won't try to find a way to never leave office? When he's already talked about a third term because his first was stolen?
He has proven he will do anything to hold that office forever and has a Supreme Court that will enable him to do whatever. And if he wins, that would likely come with a Senate majority that would let him further ensconce this Supreme Court majority with even more extreme nutjobs like Matthew Kacsmaryk and James Ho.
But hey, could never happen here, right? ::)
1. The charges against Trump were not dismissed so theoretically he still could be prosecuted for January 6. A whole bunch of case law will need to be developed to determine what actual impact it has. (And yes I do realize that him getting prosecuted for anything related to this is slim.)
2. He doesn't have a Supreme Court that "will let him do whatever." It's the same Supreme Court that dismissed every 2020 election legal argument he brought forward. As Pak has pointed out, if anything this is a too broad interpretation of Executive power, but it doesn't rip up the Constitution or anything like that.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 05, 2024, 07:53:49 AM
President Trump literally tried to launch a coup in obvious violation of the Constitution and this court granted him immunity for that.
Are people just memory holing January 6? We literally watched treason and an attempted sabotage on our democracy on live TV and are acting like the same person won't try to find a way to never leave office? When he's already talked about a third term because his first was stolen?
He has proven he will do anything to hold that office forever and has a Supreme Court that will enable him to do whatever. And if he wins, that would likely come with a Senate majority that would let him further ensconce this Supreme Court majority with even more extreme nutjobs like Matthew Kacsmaryk and James Ho.
But hey, could never happen here, right? ::)
you guys and your "coups" the capital police sure didn't act as if they were under siege at all, but keep er going I guess
speaking of dog whistles-i wish you guys would review the actions of that day from beginning to end but unfortunately the so called commission deleted a lot of information..why? they sure did pick and choose their "evidence"
also, why is this just coming out now?
https://nypost.com/2024/06/10/us-news/nancy-pelosi-says-i-take-responsibility-for-not-having-national-guard-at-the-capitol-on-jan-6-video-shows/
honesty is being more and more difficult to come by, yes on both sides, but lets's focus on the handling of someone's mental fitness right now as that is of utmost importance for our country and the world-we have been lied to for years and now those lies are piling up with very dangerous implications. the "mostly peaceful riots" that occurred throughout the year prior to you "coup" were far more dangerous and destructive
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 05, 2024, 08:15:07 AM
you guys and your "coups" the capital police sure didn't act as if they were under siege at all, but keep er going I guess
speaking of dog whistles-i wish you guys would review the actions of that day from beginning to end but unfortunately the so called commission deleted a lot of information..why? they sure did pick and choose their "evidence"
also, why is this just coming out now?
https://nypost.com/2024/06/10/us-news/nancy-pelosi-says-i-take-responsibility-for-not-having-national-guard-at-the-capitol-on-jan-6-video-shows/
honesty is being more and more difficult to come by, yes on both sides, but lets's focus on the handling of someone's mental fitness right now as that is of utmost importance for our country and the world-we have been lied to for years and now those lies are piling up with very dangerous implications. the "mostly peaceful riots" that occurred throughout the year prior to you "coup" were far more dangerous and destructive
8 out of 10, comrade
You guys are so cute with your precedents and past practices.
Is that similar to the practice of not allowing a Supreme Court Justice to get a hearing in an election year that prevented Merrick Garland from being seated? The same practice that was ignored to seat Amy Coney Barrett before RBG's body was cold?
Or the precedent that all these justices declared Roe to be settled law in their hearings before overruling as soon as they had a chance?
The laws and Constitution are little more than a speed bump to pave the way for Project 2025 that is designed to lock in one party rule as soon as possible.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 05, 2024, 08:20:30 AM
You guys are so cute with your precedents and past practices.
Is that similar to the practice of not allowing a Supreme Court Justice to get a hearing in an election year that prevented Merrick Garland from being seated? The same practice that was ignored to seat Amy Coney Barrett before RBG's body was cold?
Or the precedent that all these justices declared Roe to be settled law in their hearings before overruling as soon as they had a chance?
The laws and Constitution are little more than a speed bump to pave the way for Project 2025 that is designed to lock in one party rule as soon as possible.
They've been saying it out loud. For a long time.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 05, 2024, 08:15:07 AM
you guys and your "coups" the capital police sure didn't act as if they were under siege at all, but keep er going I guess
Uh...wut?
If you're afraid of Project 2025 - and you should be - you should be way more concerned with the Dems trotting out the corpse of Joe Biden this fall than you should with John Roberts.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 05, 2024, 08:40:37 AM
If you're afraid of Project 2025 - and you should be - you should be way more concerned with the Dems trotting out the corpse of Joe Biden this fall than you should with John Roberts.
Mostly because the court will have four septuagenarians.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 05, 2024, 08:40:37 AM
If you're afraid of Project 2025 - and you should be - you should be way more concerned with the Dems trotting out the corpse of Joe Biden this fall than you should with John Roberts.
Correct.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 05, 2024, 08:40:37 AM
If you're afraid of Project 2025 - and you should be - you should be way more concerned with the Dems trotting out the corpse of Joe Biden this fall than you should with John Roberts.
100%.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 05, 2024, 08:40:37 AM
If you're afraid of Project 2025 - and you should be - you should be way more concerned with the Dems trotting out the corpse of Joe Biden this fall than you should with John Roberts.
Sign me up for a brokered convention tomorrow. Whitmer, Warnock, Shapiro, Beshear, any of them would win because the country is desperate for anyone that isn't "these same two" and they could walk away from the weaknesses in Biden's support (Gaza policy, age issues, etc).
But it's not Roberts that should scare people. Roberts hasn't been in control of this court for the past four years. It's the Heritage Foundation court now. SCOTUS exists to enable Project 2025. Just like Trump continues to exist for that reason.
This SCOTUS action, along with Project 2025, is the right wing trying to advance their unitary executive theory that will in effect be the Republican version of the 1933 Enabling Act that made Germany a one-party state.
It can happen here, and all of this is efforts to make it happen here.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 05, 2024, 09:05:29 AM
This SCOTUS action, along with Project 2025, is the right wing trying to advance their unitary executive theory that will in effect be the Republican version of the 1933 Enabling Act that made Germany a one-party state.
Hyperbolic nonsense.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 05, 2024, 08:28:31 AM
They've been saying it out loud. For a long time.
Yes. Yet for some reason, people don't believe them when they explicitly spell out their plans for all of the world to see.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 05, 2024, 08:40:37 AM
If you're afraid of Project 2025 - and you should be - you should be way more concerned with the Dems trotting out the corpse of Joe Biden this fall than you should with John Roberts.
Yep, I fear for our country for both of those reasons, and a few others.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 05, 2024, 09:05:29 AM
It can happen here, and all of this is efforts to make it happen here.
Yessir. Perhaps the scariest thing of all is that many people I consider intelligent and reasonable believe, for some reason, that it can't happen here.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 05, 2024, 09:05:29 AM
Sign me up for a brokered convention tomorrow. Whitmer, Warnock, Shapiro, Beshear, any of them would win because the country is desperate for anyone that isn't "these same two" and they could walk away from the weaknesses in Biden's support (Gaza policy, age issues, etc).
But it's not Roberts that should scare people. Roberts hasn't been in control of this court for the past four years. It's the Heritage Foundation court now. SCOTUS exists to enable Project 2025. Just like Trump continues to exist for that reason.
This SCOTUS action, along with Project 2025, is the right wing trying to advance their unitary executive theory that will in effect be the Republican version of the 1933 Enabling Act that made Germany a one-party state.
It can happen here, and all of this is efforts to make it happen here.
You're naming a lot of people without name recognition that you think would beat Trump. A brokered convention that produces a name that isn't Whitmer, Newsom, Pritzker, or Harris would probably lose since the average American has no clue who Josh Shapiro, Raphael Warnock, or Andy Bashear are. I am a nerd, so I know, but they're not popular enough, especially with a far shorter election season.
Let's be honest, if Joe drops out, the Dems are running Kamala, and she is a different kind of disaster, but a disaster nonetheless.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on July 05, 2024, 09:25:24 AM
You're naming a lot of people without name recognition that you think would beat Trump. A brokered convention that produces a name that isn't Whitmer, Newsom, Pritzker, or Harris would probably lose since the average American has no clue who Josh Shapiro, Raphael Warnock, or Andy Bashear are. I am a nerd, so I know, but they're not popular enough, especially with a far shorter election season.
Let's be honest, if Joe drops out, the Dems are running Kamala, and she is a different kind of disaster, but a disaster nonetheless.
Right. Biden should have dropped out two years ago. Now they are screwed no matter what they do.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on July 05, 2024, 09:27:36 AM
Right. Biden should have dropped out two years ago. Now they are screwed no matter what they do.
Yes, he should have, but I'm not sure they're screwed. Having said that, if Joe drops out I sincerely doubt that Trump agrees to do any more debates.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on July 05, 2024, 09:25:24 AM
You're naming a lot of people without name recognition that you think would beat Trump. A brokered convention that produces a name that isn't Whitmer, Newsom, Pritzker, or Harris would probably lose since the average American has no clue who Josh Shapiro, Raphael Warnock, or Andy Bashear are. I am a nerd, so I know, but they're not popular enough, especially with a far shorter election season.
Let's be honest, if Joe drops out, the Dems are running Kamala, and she is a different kind of disaster, but a disaster nonetheless.
I disagree. I actually think any viable new name at this point is in better shape than they would've been had he dropped out 2 years ago. The campaign would be all energy with not enough time to create the negative narratives that come with an 18-month campaign.
The most popular refrain right now is "anybody but Trump or Biden." That's the one thing that would consolidate the country.
Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on July 05, 2024, 09:16:18 AM
Hyperbolic nonsense.
I'm sure Germans in 1932 would've thought the same. The only nonsense is being so blind as to not see that is the goal and it's already in progress.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 05, 2024, 09:37:15 AM
I disagree. I actually think any viable new name at this point is in better shape than they would've been had he dropped out 2 years ago. The campaign would be all energy with not enough time to create the negative narratives that come with an 18-month campaign.
The most popular refrain right now is "anybody but Trump or Biden." That's the one thing that would consolidate the country.
I'm sure Germans in 1932 would've thought the same. The only nonsense is being so blind as to not see that is the goal and it's already in progress.
Better than Biden? Of course! Able to win is an entirely different story. I promise you there has already been a TON of oppo research that has been done for each of the potential Biden replacements.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 05, 2024, 09:37:15 AM
I'm sure Germans in 1932 would've thought the same. The only nonsense is being so blind as to not see that is the goal and it's already in progress.
This seems to ignore German history, which is quite different from American history, especially up to 1932.
The Nazi regime wasn't born in a vacuum and German authoritarianism wasn't created by Hitler. The Weimar Republic was the anomaly of German history, not the norm. Authoritarianism was the established and accepted government in Germany for centuries.
Suggesting that the political climate of the U.S. today is akin to 1932 Germany is historically inaccurate, and by miles. The Germans in 1932 wouldn't have suggested that fears of authoritarianism were hyperbolic. They would have said, "Well, yeah, that's who we are."
Speaking of Biden's status, I've seen some funny but on point tweets lately noting that the Democrats are acting like a sports team that's about to fire its coach. Closed door team meetings. Public votes of confidence, but leaks illustrating a sh*tshow behind the scenes. The coach/president promises that he's in it for the long haul.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 05, 2024, 09:58:15 AM
The Germans in 1932 wouldn't have suggested that fears of authoritarianism were hyperbolic. They would have said, "Well, yeah, that's who we are."
That's reassuring.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 05, 2024, 10:02:34 AM
Speaking of Biden's status, I've seen some funny but on point tweets lately noting that the Democrats are acting like a sports team that's about to fire its coach. Closed door team meetings. Public votes of confidence, but leaks illustrating a sh*tshow behind the scenes. The coach/president promises that he's in it for the long haul.
Very apropos