The Supreme Court has been comprised

[LordofallSocks]

Crazed leftists at it again.

I got a few of these branches in ye olde family tree. I'm curious what they're going to kill me with, since they "don't believe in guns."

 

[grandhavendiddy]

comprised of what?

lol. Exactly.

 

[jsfgators]

I have a cousin like this. He cut off all of his family including his mother, wouldn't take her calls. He moved from Texas to California, if that gives any clues to just how whacko he is. 😂 😂 😂

Yeah. Mine is a cousin too.militant Bull dike lesbian. She’s a doctor who provides “gender affirming care”.

 

[jsfgators]

I got a few of these branches in ye olde family tree. I'm curious what they're going to kill me with, since they "don't believe in guns."

Honestly, I worry that the ones in my family would “SWAT” my household

 

[Illegal-shift]

Think that's the case because no one would've dreamed of claiming a President exercising powers as Commander in Chief "broke the law" and could be criminally prosecuted. We don't live in that world any longer. As dirty as politics may have been back then, it's become a blood sport now, where the other side isn't merely "wrong," it's choosing to be "wrong" because it's "evil."

Three examples come to mind:

Joe Biden as VP threatens to withhold aid from Ukraine if a particular prosecutor who happened to be investigating a company with "ties" to Hunter Biden is not fired (less clumsily - "You want the aid? Fire the prosecutor.")

Joe Biden as President slow walks Congressionally approved aid to Israel (which he authorized by signing the Bill which approved it, BTW) because Israel isn't following his lead re "Gaza Peace." Why's he doing that? A case can be made that a particular constituency of Biden's which could make a huge difference in the fall election is threatening to sit out the November election because he's been too solicitous (as in "at all") of Israel & he needs their support to have a chance.

Trump calls his opposite number in Ukraine and threatens to withhold aid if Ukraine doesn't turn up the heat on the company with "ties" to Hunter Biden.

In the current environment, Dems would tell you the latter is a crime & there's not a thing wrong with the first two.

The correct answer (IMO)? If you have a problem with that conduct, you impeach / oppose for re-election.

Say there's no immunity whatsoever and we turn into a nation where every time there's a change in party from one Administration to the next, the first order of business will be "Initiate criminal prosecutions of the previous Administration."

There MUST be "immunity" for doing the job. That has to be the starting point. The parameters of that immunity, we can debate.


That follows - how can something which is itself immune (the official act) be evidence of a crime?

My ansewr to that is "Yeah, so?" That's not the argument in their favor that they think it is, arguing that a President should be able to be prosecuted for "official acts," that an official act which is in and of itself immune can be evidence of a crime.

You give the dissents too much credit, IMO. As far as I'm concerned, Sotomayor subcontracted her dissent to the DNC. It's hysterical, and not in the "ha ha" way.

IMO, this case and the reaction to it is further evidence of how Trump "broke" Washington & how much the Elite hates him. They'll countenance anything if it "gets" him.

I'll repeat something I wrote before. This result was invited by the Prosecutor & Lower Courts overreaching. They argued there was NO immunity whatsoever. Why? Because "Get Trump."

Remove Trump from the equation, ascribe similar conduct to a Democrat, and Sotomayor's tune would be 180 degrees different.

The notion that a President has NO immunity is nonsense, especially when politics is being fought as a blood sport. You want a dictatorship? Make "never being subjected to what you did to the people before you" an imperative & you'll get a dictatorship, sooner or later.

The Supremes' Majority gave the sensible answer:

• There is immunity for doing the job.
• The parameters of that immunity will have to be fleshed out.
• We start from the premise that "core functions" (however they are defined) have absolute immunity.

BTW: the Supremes did NOT rule and say "Therefore dismiss the case against Trump."

What they said was "You said there's no immunity, you're wrong. We think there is, depending on the particulars of the claim. Here's our thought on those particulars. Now that you have our input on how this works, do your job - weigh the circumstances and decide whether immunity applies (or not) and why."

I appreciate the tenor & tone of your comments and am happy to engage (and, hopefully, have responded in kind).

Brad,

Thanks you for your reply. Well thought out as I expected it would be. I put my responses below in red.

Think that's the case because no one would've dreamed of claiming a President exercising powers as Commander in Chief "broke the law" and could be criminally prosecuted. We don't live in that world any longer. As dirty as politics may have been back then, it's become a blood sport now, where the other side isn't merely "wrong," it's choosing to be "wrong" because it's "evil."

Ya, this is a good point. Politics in general has gotten a lot worse and looking at the way things have been done historically is not nearly as persuasive as it once might have been. Point taken here and I will incorporate this a bit more in my thinking going forward.

And they also point out a significant part of this you didn't mention above ( and I know you where likely dumbing this down a bit so us non-attorneys would follow)........the fact that the court also said that you cannot use any evidence that was related to an official act. That, to me, seems to be a significant point that does make it harder to hold a president accountable.

That follows - how can something which is itself immune (the official act) be evidence of a crime?

Here is where you and I disagree. I would encourage you to go back and look at Amy Coney Barrett's position on this. At this point in time ( since this is all new, my position is still a bit fluid) its where I stand and I think she is the only justice who actually got this right. Clearly official acts need to be immune, but I don't see the benefit of excluding evidence from official acts. I agree with her that the majority went to far (and the dissent was also wrong). Lets use a hypothetical to illustrate:

Assume Joe Biden is negotiating with the Chinese on trade. Unknown to anyone at the time, the Chinese wire $20 million into an offshore bank account in the name of some hidden Biden company. Biden agrees on the trade deal to drop the tariffs on the Chinese.

The republicans get wind that something is amiss and start investigating. And lets further say that within the official part of the negotiations with the Chinese there is some bits of evidence that could tie these two things together and become important pieces in an eventual trial (bare with me a bit on this hypothetical and lets assume their is a separate official act of negotiating a trade agreement as opposed to some separate private deal that was made involving the $). Isn't in the best interest of the country to allow that evidence? Where is the benefit to not allowing it? A president would not be restricted in any way in official acts unless he is committing a personal crime. At this point in time we don't have any definition as to what an official act actually is.........so having to "sus-out" what evidence would even be allowed at a minimum would make it much harder to prosecute, would it not? This just seems to add levels of complexity to the process of trying to hold a president accountable without a corresponding benefit for what we are doing. Especially when you factor in the ton of grey area that may exist with regard to what is an official and what is not.

But, again, I will qualify that I am not a lawyer so there may be things you can point out here that I am ignorant of......and I would be happy to here them if that is the case. I am just trying to apply my common sense.

Remove Trump from the equation, ascribe similar conduct to a Democrat, and Sotomayor's tune would be 180 degrees different.

I agree this is probably right, which is part of why I started this whole debate. However, I ask you this question.........if you remove Trump from the equation does the majority come to the same conclusion? Or would more of them have sided with Barrett on the evidence question? And just for clarity, I am not saying any of them would have sided with the dissent without Trump, that, IMO would not be the case.

 

[Orangeclad]

Think that's the case because no one would've dreamed of claiming a President exercising powers as Commander in Chief "broke the law" and could be criminally prosecuted. We don't live in that world any longer. As dirty as politics may have been back then, it's become a blood sport now, where the other side isn't merely "wrong," it's choosing to be "wrong" because it's "evil."

Three examples come to mind:

Joe Biden as VP threatens to withhold aid from Ukraine if a particular prosecutor who happened to be investigating a company with "ties" to Hunter Biden is not fired (less clumsily - "You want the aid? Fire the prosecutor.")

Joe Biden as President slow walks Congressionally approved aid to Israel (which he authorized by signing the Bill which approved it, BTW) because Israel isn't following his lead re "Gaza Peace." Why's he doing that? A case can be made that a particular constituency of Biden's which could make a huge difference in the fall election is threatening to sit out the November election because he's been too solicitous (as in "at all") of Israel & he needs their support to have a chance.

Trump calls his opposite number in Ukraine and threatens to withhold aid if Ukraine doesn't turn up the heat on the company with "ties" to Hunter Biden.

In the current environment, Dems would tell you the latter is a crime & there's not a thing wrong with the first two.

The correct answer (IMO)? If you have a problem with that conduct, you impeach / oppose for re-election.

Say there's no immunity whatsoever and we turn into a nation where every time there's a change in party from one Administration to the next, the first order of business will be "Initiate criminal prosecutions of the previous Administration."

There MUST be "immunity" for doing the job. That has to be the starting point. The parameters of that immunity, we can debate.


That follows - how can something which is itself immune (the official act) be evidence of a crime?

My ansewr to that is "Yeah, so?" That's not the argument in their favor that they think it is, arguing that a President should be able to be prosecuted for "official acts," that an official act which is in and of itself immune can be evidence of a crime.

You give the dissents too much credit, IMO. As far as I'm concerned, Sotomayor subcontracted her dissent to the DNC. It's hysterical, and not in the "ha ha" way.

IMO, this case and the reaction to it is further evidence of how Trump "broke" Washington & how much the Elite hates him. They'll countenance anything if it "gets" him.

I'll repeat something I wrote before. This result was invited by the Prosecutor & Lower Courts overreaching. They argued there was NO immunity whatsoever. Why? Because "Get Trump."

Remove Trump from the equation, ascribe similar conduct to a Democrat, and Sotomayor's tune would be 180 degrees different.

The notion that a President has NO immunity is nonsense, especially when politics is being fought as a blood sport. You want a dictatorship? Make "never being subjected to what you did to the people before you" an imperative & you'll get a dictatorship, sooner or later.

The Supremes' Majority gave the sensible answer:

• There is immunity for doing the job.
• The parameters of that immunity will have to be fleshed out.
• We start from the premise that "core functions" (however they are defined) have absolute immunity.

BTW: the Supremes did NOT rule and say "Therefore dismiss the case against Trump."

What they said was "You said there's no immunity, you're wrong. We think there is, depending on the particulars of the claim. Here's our thought on those particulars. Now that you have our input on how this works, do your job - weigh the circumstances and decide whether immunity applies (or not) and why."

I appreciate the tenor & tone of your comments and am happy to engage (and, hopefully, have responded in kind).

The dems have no problem pushing limits on power and behavior and how many of the SCOTUS decisions are made to bring back some degree of normalcy. The court isn't making this decision but for the dems desire to go after Trump. Packing the court was a desire back in FDR days as it is today. The Chevron decision is to quell some of the power federal agencies have taken. Harry Reid decided to screw the filibuster on federal judges. Look at what that morphed into. Dems are about power and control and they will always justify their means by saying they are going after evil. But I guess weaponizing the intelligence community is the Dems way of saving democracy.

 

[BradDad57]

Brad,

Thanks you for your reply. Well thought out as I expected it would be. I put my responses below in red.



Ya, this is a good point. Politics in general has gotten a lot worse and looking at the way things have been done historically is not nearly as persuasive as it once might have been. Point taken here and I will incorporate this a bit more in my thinking going forward.

That follows - how can something which is itself immune (the official act) be evidence of a crime?

Here is where you and I disagree. I would encourage you to go back and look at Amy Coney Barrett's position on this. At this point in time ( since this is all new, my position is still a bit fluid) its where I stand and I think she is the only justice who actually got this right. Clearly official acts need to be immune, but I don't see the benefit of excluding evidence from official acts. I agree with her that the majority went to far (and the dissent was also wrong). Lets use a hypothetical to illustrate:

Assume Joe Biden is negotiating with the Chinese on trade. Unknown to anyone at the time, the Chinese wire $20 million into an offshore bank account in the name of some hidden Biden company. Biden agrees on the trade deal to drop the tariffs on the Chinese.

The republicans get wind that something is amiss and start investigating. And lets further say that within the official part of the negotiations with the Chinese there is some bits of evidence that could tie these two things together and become important pieces in an eventual trial (bare with me a bit on this hypothetical and lets assume their is a separate official act of negotiating a trade agreement as opposed to some separate private deal that was made involving the $). Isn't in the best interest of the country to allow that evidence? Where is the benefit to not allowing it? A president would not be restricted in any way in official acts unless he is committing a personal crime. At this point in time we don't have any definition as to what an official act actually is.........so having to "sus-out" what evidence would even be allowed at a minimum would make it much harder to prosecute, would it not? This just seems to add levels of complexity to the process of trying to hold a president accountable without a corresponding benefit for what we are doing. Especially when you factor in the ton of grey area that may exist with regard to what is an official and what is not.

But, again, I will qualify that I am not a lawyer so there may be things you can point out here that I am ignorant of......and I would be happy to here them if that is the case. I am just trying to apply my common sense.

Remove Trump from the equation, ascribe similar conduct to a Democrat, and Sotomayor's tune would be 180 degrees different.

I agree this is probably right, which is part of why I started this whole debate. However, I ask you this question.........if you remove Trump from the equation does the majority come to the same conclusion? Or would more of them have sided with Barrett on the evidence question? And just for clarity, I am not saying any of them would have sided with the dissent without Trump, that, IMO would not be the case.

Your example's well thought out. I don't know that it cuts the way you're describing it.

First, a President who engages in a quid pro quo is abusing his Presidential powers and authority for personal gain. Beyond fitting within "high crimes and misdemeanors," there's the fact that what's described also falls under the general rubric of bribery.

Last observation: IMO, the need to sus out what evidence will be allowed is essential to insuring a President can do the job. In the grand scheme of things, when one has to choose between the President being immune except from elections, term limits and impeachment and a President's political opponents having "open season" on prosecuting for whatever they might be able to dream up, I lean toward the former.

Our politics is so corrupt in the present day that prosecuting Trump NOW, putting him on trial in the 10 months before the 2024 election, the desire for a "convicted felon" verdict as a political cudgel against him, was not a bridge too far.

If Dems weren't engaged in the present jihad, if our politics hadn't become the pursuit, acquisition & exercise of power by any means, perhaps we could afford a "No Immunity" world. We're not there.

At present, there are two justice systems: One for those favored by the people who exercise power, and the other for "everyone else."

You've heard the saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That's where we are right now. The Elite see their power being challenged and they don't like it, so anything goes."

Protesters they like have charges dropped. Protesters they don't like go to prison.

Republicans held in contempt of Congress are prosecuted & go to jail. Democrats held in contempt of Congress aren't prosecuted.

There's a sizable group on the right which wants a President Trump to prosecute every Democrat he can find if he's re-elected, the belief being "What goes around comes around."

Not exactly the organizing principle of government those guys had in mind when they signed that Declaration on July 4, 1776.

 

[Illegal-shift]

Your example's well thought out. I don't know that it cuts the way you're describing it.

First, a President who engages in a quid pro quo is abusing his Presidential powers and authority for personal gain. Beyond fitting within "high crimes and misdemeanors," there's the fact that what's described also falls under the general rubric of bribery.

Last observation: IMO, the need to sus out what evidence will be allowed is essential to insuring a President can do the job. In the grand scheme of things, when one has to choose between the President being immune except from elections, term limits and impeachment and a President's political opponents having "open season" on prosecuting for whatever they might be able to dream up, I lean toward the former.

Our politics is so corrupt in the present day that prosecuting Trump NOW, putting him on trial in the 10 months before the 2024 election, the desire for a "convicted felon" verdict as a political cudgel against him, was not a bridge too far.

If Dems weren't engaged in the present jihad, if our politics hadn't become the pursuit, acquisition & exercise of power by any means, perhaps we could afford a "No Immunity" world. We're not there.

At present, there are two justice systems: One for those favored by the people who exercise power, and the other for "everyone else."

You've heard the saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That's where we are right now. The Elite see their power being challenged and they don't like it, so anything goes."

Protesters they like have charges dropped. Protesters they don't like go to prison.

Republicans held in contempt of Congress are prosecuted & go to jail. Democrats held in contempt of Congress aren't prosecuted.

There's a sizable group on the right which wants a President Trump to prosecute every Democrat he can find if he's re-elected, the belief being "What goes around comes around."

Not exactly the organizing principle of government those guys had in mind when they signed that Declaration on July 4, 1776.

Well you hit several different area's here. I don't disagree overall, but I think I take a more centrist viewpoint on this stuff. There is a fair amount of blame that can be attributed to each side for the mess we are in.

 

[Orangeclad]

Only a liberal centrist is gonna give a fair amount of blame to each side for the mess we're in. I guess it's Trump's fault for the high inflation or millions of illegals coming in here and causing problems all over the country. There is never proportionality given to who is MOSTLY responsible.
As I always say, if 80 percent of murders were being committed by democrats, the talking point would be that murders are committed by both sides.

 

[treygator29]

This hasn’t been an issue for almost 250 years. The only reason it’s an issue now, is because of the domino that the Democrats and the Biden Administration knocked over. When you arrest a political opponent, rightfully so or not, these are the things that will happen. Don’t be fooled why Dems are upset by this. They’re upset because it takes power out of their hands. They’re upset because the avenue they tried to wipe the opposition away, won’t work. They’re not upset for the implied implications on the average citizen.

This entire election and American politics in general the last 4-5 years, has been conducted without any care about precedents being set in the future. That will be the downfall of democracy unless we revert back.

 

[Mrs. Sadgator]

This hasn’t been an issue for almost 250 years. The only reason it’s an issue now, is because of the domino that the Democrats and the Biden Administration knocked over. When you arrest a political opponent, rightfully so or not, these are the things that will happen. Don’t be fooled why Dems are upset by this. They’re upset because it takes power out of their hands. They’re upset because the avenue they tried to wipe the opposition away, won’t work. They’re not upset for the implied implications on the average citizen.

This entire election and American politics in general the last 4-5 years, has been conducted without any care about precedents being set in the future. That will be the downfall of democracy unless we revert back.

I'm not even sure why Trump was allowed to debate. He should be behind bars.

 

[BillytheC]

I'm not even sure why Trump was allowed to debate. He should be behind bars.

the ONLY reason you libs want all the bogus charges to somehow put Trump in jail is because you know outside of cheating there is no way joey beats him- funny thing about that is there is nothing in the Constitution that putting him in jail would disqualify him from running for Prez-

 

[LordofallSocks]

I'm not even sure why Trump was allowed to debate. He should be behind bars.

for what, he hasn't been sentenced yet.

 

[Orangeclad]

for what, he hasn't been sentenced yet.

That doesn't matter. When you ascribe Hitler qualities, anything goes.

 

[Mrs. Sadgator]

the ONLY reason you libs want all the bogus charges to somehow put Trump in jail is because you know outside of cheating there is no way joey beats him- funny thing about that is there is nothing in the Constitution that putting him in jail would disqualify him from running for Prez-

Here's the thing, I don't even care if we cheat, I just want Joe to win. Mail in ballots allow us "wiggle room", charges can hopefully keep Trump at bay or at least swing Independents our way. Cheating or not cheating, we need Trump in jail and Biden smiling at the podium on election day. That's ALL that matters.

 

[BradDad57]

Here's the thing, I don't even care if we cheat, I just want Joe to win. Mail in ballots allow us "wiggle room", charges can hopefully keep Trump at bay or at least swing Independents our way. Cheating or not cheating, we need Trump in jail and Biden smiling at the podium on election day. That's ALL that matters.

This is beyond sad. For the sake of the country, the attitude you have must die.

 

[Orangeclad]

This is beyond sad. For the sake of the country, the attitude you have must die.

At least she's honest and reflects the thinking of much of the democrat party.
Reminds me of 2012 when Romney was accused by Harry Reid of not paying taxes, which was a big lie. After the election, Harry Reid was interviewed about that accusation and his response was "we won, didn't we." Much cheating would follow to present day.

 

[BillytheC]

Here's the thing, I don't even care if we cheat, I just want Joe to win. Mail in ballots allow us "wiggle room", charges can hopefully keep Trump at bay or at least swing Independents our way. Cheating or not cheating, we need Trump in jail and Biden smiling at the podium on election day. That's ALL that matters.

as I said you disgust me

 

[Mrs. Sadgator]

as I said you disgust me

I just want what's best for everyone, willingly or forced. If a kid won't eat food, we don't let it die, we hook up tube's, same with voters. We need people to do the right thing or we can force them to do the right thing

 

[Mrs. Sadgator]

This is beyond sad. For the sake of the country, the attitude you have must die.

Everyone will conform sooner or later, this "process" that we are going through might be difficult for some of you to take but it must be done. Trump is your last hope and we won't let that happen

 

[NavigatorII]

Everyone will co form sooner or later, this "process" that we are going through might be difficult for some of you to take but it must be done. Trump is your last hope and we won't let that happen

Co form..........comprised..........

???

When did UF get a Pakistani foreign exchange program?

 

[LordofallSocks]

Co form..........comprised..........

???

When did UF get a Pakistani foreign exchange program?

God damn foreigners.

 

[NavigatorII]

God damn foreigners.

Who knew Sad married one of those sex slaves from Eastern Europe? He seriously got ripped off, according to Sad. 😂