The Supreme Court has been comprised
- Thread starter Mrs. Sadgator
- Start date
what a totally asinine statement- you are just pissed that joey's scheme to remove his chief opponent by any and all means is failing - obviously you have never read The Constitution, and then all you do is parrot what the libs say abouit the decision
Yes it’s comprised of 9 judges. Been that way for a long time.
It wasn't a scheme! 34 felonies.
The part of this that is disturbing is that this vote was along party lines.
The court needed to show solidarity with this decision.....one way or the other.
We are in trouble.
The court needed to show solidarity with this decision.....one way or the other.
We are in trouble.
The better question is when they are, what usually occurred?
same thing as when there was a simple majority.
Can't expect common sense from a couple of them …
Last edited:
yes those 34 felonies where the joey admin was involved in the false charges
You beat me to it. I was just about to write the exact same thing. KalimGoodman must be his new ghost writer.
FACT CHECK: Biden's 5 Lies About the Supreme Court's Ruling on Trump's Immunity
President Biden issued multiple false statements about a Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity and his record in office.
Ooof! Late to the party. Comprised you say? 6 heroes and 3 village idiots? Lordsock will NOT be pleased with your vocabulary. 😂
It's necessary.
In the specific case that it occurred, I agree that killing an American citizen operating with enemy forces rather than capturing him and putting him on trial was the correct course of action and President Obama should not be charge with what is an obvious violation of said assholes constitutional rights.
That's not really the point, it didn't need to be unanimous. This is nothing like Roe V Wade which has been a left v Right issue since I have been alive. Everybody new it likely would come down in accordance with the make-up of the court.
But this is something different. It is not an inherently political question. The only reason this issue would be decided along political lines (and with a scathing dissent) is if the justices (likely from both sides) interpreted this question with an eye towards how its going to effect Donald Trump. So they make a decision that could have far reaching consequences for years and years to come based on political situation of one man who will be completely out of American politics in less than 5 years (assuming he does leave when he is supposed to).
The short sighted and blatantly political result here is the strongest sign yet that the Supreme court can no longer do its job and has just become another hyper-political institution.
Last edited:
I don't disagree with you. Politicians do the same, like with Harry Reid and the filibuster and the nuclear option, which as you say is very short-sighted ...
Yes, but they are politicians who need to be re-elected every few years. The Supreme court is supposed to be, and typically has been, something different. Its why they get lifetime appointments. So they will be less effected by short term politics.
Just feels like we took another step towards the cliff.
If the Supreme Court were 6-3 the other way, our country would look very different and would be unrecognizable in a few years ...
Not relevant to the point I am making. I don't even know which party this decision will benefit in the long run. I don't think the justices do either (beyond the currents situation). Making the president even more powerful is, in my view, not good for America. Sooner or later that power will be abused and it may well be a democrat who does it.
I am certainly not a legal expert, but my gut reaction is that this decision will come back to bite us at some point.
The last four years has been an incredible abuse of power, So your prediction has already come true ...
OK, you just want to make a "the democrats are the devil" argument. I was trying to look at this without a partisan slant.
Have fun.
No, I see your point and I agree with you.
But I could not help but reflect upon how the Biden administration has treated Trump and those involved on January 6 ...
Last edited:
As a history and law teacher for the last 17 years, almost never Fres. Almost never.
When they are, someone (usually called "the losing party") seriously overreached.
Don't see that this decision does that.
The remedy for abuse of office is impeachment. Always has been. The idea that a President could be criminally charged for, say, approving a military operation is ludicrous.
As an example: While he was President, Obama essentially authorized the execution of Osama Bin Laden. Would you want some prosecutor claiming he was engaged in a conspiracy to commit murder and should be so charged?
BTW - Obama approved drone hits on a number of others during his Presidency. On occasion, people other than the target wound up dead.
All the Supremes said is
- A President can't be charged with a crime for "doing the job of being President."
- Whether the particular activity in question is part of "doing the job of being President" has to be determined.
Brad,
I have read a lot of your posts the last couple years and I usually agree with you and I respect your opinions, but don't see eye to eye on this one. And I know you are an attorney so you may have some insight that I don't, but I have listened to a number of attorney's discuss this and have spoken directly with a few others.
I don't think this really has much to do with things like your Bin Laden example. We have never had that kind of issue be a problem that I am aware of. Truman dropped Atomic bombs on entire cities of mostly civilians and didn't get prosecuted. Its only acts that have skirted the line between official and not that have caused this to come to light.
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.
The immediate responses to this was that Trump's side sees this as a victory and the democrat a defeat, which, IMO also bolsters my point of view. They are already saying that some of Jack's Smiths evidence in the Jan 6th case might fall under this and may get thrown out.
Lastly, the dissenting judges clearly see this as a strengthening of the presidents power. Maybe they are wrong......but this gets back to my original point and what is disturbing about this whole thing to me. That this issue ended up being divided along political lines.......something I suspect would not be the case if we didn't have the Trump issues right in front of them right now. A short term problem has contributed to a questionable long term decision.
Anyway, feel free to slice and dice my post here if you like.......no worries, I have thick skin. As long as you make a reasonable case I will certainly listen and consider.
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.
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).
Last edited:
Instagator has made this point for years. It's like these idiots can't see and process what their eyes and ears tell them.
I got three of these types in my family. I cut them out. Would be met with aggression at the gate
Crazed leftists at it again.
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. 😂 😂 😂
