End of Chevron doctrine

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

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

[Pakuni]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Uncle Rico]

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

[SoCalEagle]

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.

[The Sultan]

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?

[GB Warrior]

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?

[lawdog77]

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.

[The Sultan]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[rocket surgeon]

"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?

[rocket surgeon]

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

[Pakuni]

kinda like Hussein then eyn'a?

[Herman Cain]

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

[SoCalEagle]

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?

[The Sultan]

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.

[Uncle Rico]

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!

😚

[Pakuni]

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.

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? 

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.

Have 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.

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.

[brewcity77]

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? 

[Hards Alumni]

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.

Amendment 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

[Pakuni]

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.

He 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?

[The Sultan]

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.

[rocket surgeon]

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

[Uncle Rico]

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