Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

You dumbasses that think anything other than dotard doing whatever the fuck he wants without consequence have been sniffing twice and gator's farts for too long.

Nothing personal against our esteemed posters, but got damn have none of you been paying attention for the last nine years?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 5
Posted
1 minute ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

You dumbasses that think anything other than dotard doing whatever the fuck he wants without consequence have been sniffing twice and gator's farts for too long.

Nothing personal against our esteemed posters, but got damn have none of you been paying attention for the last nine years?

Most are saying this is the case. Truly the only way to stop him is mass public protest. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 hours ago, Ojo Rojo said:

He's done it before.

Hey, I know it's kind of fun and not-just-a-little comforting to say, "The country's fucked; we're all fucked." We're all sharing some good ol' fashioned gallows humor. But in truth, it is inconceivable to me (how many times have I said that since 2016) that SCOTUS will go against Marbury v. Madison. I mean that is THE case. Without it, the court, all courts, are totally emasculated. Would the illegitimate Trump-appointed shitbirds and the unrepentant right wing nuts (Alito and Thomas) side with Trump on certain things?  Probably.  But on this?  To cut their own power, let alone abandon the rule of law that has existed for over 200 years? I don't think so.

At the state and federal district level, the courts can order the local law enforcement (sheriffs, constables and U.S. marshals) to do shit - levy property, execute bench warrants, etc.  I don't know for sure, but there has to be something similar at the Supreme Court level, where SCOTUS sends an order to the U.S. marshals to enforce their orders.  If the marshals break faith and their oaths and refuse then that could be the breaking point.  Or, if the marshals show up to DOGE headquarters, or whatever, and they are met with armed resistance, either by other federal law enforcement officials or otherwise, that could be another breaking point.

 

My opinion - I don't think the bastards have the balls to go through with it all the way to the violence phase.  Right now it's all rhetoric and I think that's what it will remain.  I continue to maintain that this is the cartoon version of a fascist dictatorship.  Yes, the president does have certain real powers that we can't do anything about - pardoning Jan. 6th traitors, deporting our cheap labor workforce, etc.  But the shit he cannot do, which is being challenged in court, will probably come out the right way, i.e. unconstitutional.  Trump and his band of wannabe fascists will bitch and demonize.  Some judges might get assassinated because of it, actually, by some true-believer dipshit.  But that's as far as I predict it will go.

Well, do remember that SCOTUS basically just tells lower courts what to do by affirming, reversing or modifying.  It's up to the lower courts to enforce their own orders as modified by SCOTUS.

For example, in Brown II, the remedy phase of Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, KS, all cases were reversed and remanded with instructions to the district court to retain jurisdiction over local school districts and authorities "to take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases."

That was, however, in the days of three-judge district court panels on constitutional questions, so there typically was no intermediate court of appeals to fuck everything up (e.g. 5th Circuit).

Posted

he can be stopped with guile and subterfuge targeting his creatures in congress with their greatest fear - loss of power

why do we need congress any more?  false-maga astroturfing is EASY

the right has never built defenses against their own offensive weaponry because it has never been turned on them

yo - spacelaserhoar - you should resign and PROVE your loyalty to dear leader by firing yourself - you are not needed any more - we don't need congress any more!

1000 maga mails and calls hitting her offices on the hill and back in norga will do the trick

rinse repeat all maglets nationwide

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
I think the question is when he tries to turn the US military on the citizenry, how do they respond. 

He won’t use the military. As mentioned, he’ll create a sizable group of “troops” made up of federal law enforcement types (see what he did last admin…just make it 20x larger). They will happily fire on American civilians on his order.
Most are saying this is the case. Truly the only way to stop him is mass public protest. 

Nope. That’s how we get a lot of Americans slaughtered.
How we stop him? You know the answer. You don’t like it. You hate it as much as I do. But you know this ends in blood, and as is always the case, it will eventually be reciprocal.
Posted

 

On 2/6/2025 at 5:28 PM, SubliminalHorn said:

Republicans have always been bigot shit heads, they just disguised it with the facade of the country club republican 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

he can be stopped with guile and subterfuge targeting his creatures in congress with their greatest fear - loss of power

why do we need congress any more?  false-maga astroturfing is EASY

the right has never built defenses against their own offensive weaponry because it has never been turned on them

yo - spacelaserhoar - you should resign and PROVE your loyalty to dear leader by firing yourself - you are not needed any more - we don't need congress any more!

1000 maga mails and calls hitting her offices on the hill and back in norga will do the trick

rinse repeat all maglets nationwide

They started from scratch and have already penetrated the minds that tend to respond to their weaponry. They hate whatever they think liberals are as defined by Brother Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan and every hatefull fuckwad after them.

The rest of us had a failure of imagination for not believing this could happen. We were caught flat footed and still waited and waited and waited to act. We're not budging the lib haters. If there are problems, blame it on the Juden libs as always.

A movement by pro-republic people won't cause a general rise against the government because the other half isn't waiting to be saved. They hate their would be saviors for being socialist elite intellectual fags looking to force sex-changes at school and grooming children to be sex toys.

We'll get a civil war. Then we come back to the banana republic question:

Where does the Army stand?

  • Like 3
Posted
9 hours ago, troph said:

Most are saying this is the case. Truly the only way to stop him is mass public protest. 

David Dennison has mentioned a national strike a few times. I think that would be more effective than public protest. Hit them in their pockets. It’s the only thing they give a damn about. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)

Don’t see a national strike and mass public protests in the cards atm. Maybe give it 9-12 months and reassess. 
 

image.thumb.jpeg.38a6a545309101db3ebe4c7d559fa430.jpeg

 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Fuck You 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Don’t see a national strike and mass public protests in the cards atm. Maybe give it 9-12 months and reassess. 
 

image.thumb.jpeg.38a6a545309101db3ebe4c7d559fa430.jpeg

 

Yeah I was listening to PSA and they went in on the numbers. They were quoting YouGov showing that 53% approval, but at the same time 66% said he needed to focus more on the economy. They attributed it to  two factors, him being a new president in general where the honeymoon phase is still going and also the fact that he's so active and visible compared to Biden. 

 

It made me wonder if the economy was even as big a factor as pundits claim it was in November. It might have just been that the people were really excited to burn it all down or to pick a side in the culture war. They blew that off as saying that people aren't holding Trump to the day 1 lower prices promise that he made and that the general voter understands nuance. I'm not as optimistic.

Edited by SimonBolivar
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Hey look, the libertarian is bragging about how popular a lawless Trump dictatorship is.

Do you bring this same level of dishonesty and misrepresentation to your practice of law?  I bet you do. 

 

If you are holding out for a massive national strike or protests based on what we have seen so far out of the Trump administration, you are simply out of touch once you step outside of the very online political bubble. 

I think that we could certainly get there though. I think that getting us into a hot war would do it. I think that deportations that get expansive and optically nasty could do it. I think that an economic meltdown could do it. That's just a few of the low hanging fruit I don't think anything that we have seen so far is close to triggering such stuff. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

David Dennison has mentioned a national strike a few times. I think that would be more effective than public protest. Hit them in their pockets. It’s the only thing they give a damn about. 

Better make sure there is actual unity in your work unit. If there are Magas or alleged neutrals to be promoted or moved to your position, you'll just be fired. A person with a family shouldn't risk that. A young single person has more freedom.

Boycotts are anonymous and devastating to cash flow. Don't buy any higher-end products. See who owns what.

I'm going to try to pull the Amazon drip IV out of my arm and start ordering direct for most things. I just got a chair from Wayfair. That may go to murderers and Trumpists, but at least it won't go to Bezos.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
15 hours ago, The Royal We said:

 

I think the pig is out of the pen on SCOTUS not wanting to be seen as Trump stooges. The Colorado ballot case and the immunity decision are pretty hard to overlook. I sure hope you are right, but I tend to lead more to the Brisket school of thought on this one.

Trump and Musk are already ignoring court orders and there are GQP congressmen hand waving it away. There's no one coming to save us. I think it's going to come down to massive protests (with protestors getting shot) and/or a general strike before anyone in the GQP even starts to get queasy.

The immunity decision didn't answer the core question - did Trump violate the law by inciting the Jan. 6th insurrection, among other things? SCOTUS kicked that issue back to the lower court then the case was dropped when he got reelected.  I actually think the court got both cases right. The president does, and should, have broad immunity for official acts. They didn't fully answer the question of what constitutes "official acts." They did suggest that the efforts to get slates of fake electors and inciting the riot were not official acts.  The Colorado ballot case was the longest of longshots from the beginning.  So neither of those cases proves that the Supreme Court has fully bent over for Trump.

Posted

Buncha Chicken Littles up in here. What has actually happened so far?  Deportations and pardons have happened and those are within the president's powers.  The other shit - shutting down federal agencies, blocking funding, giving private citizens access to very sensitive data and processes - all of that shit is currently being challenged in the courts.  The Supreme Court has yet to rule on any of those issues.  If the courts overturn Marbury v. Madison and disregard the Constitution to hand absolute power to Trump or if the court rules against him and he defies the order and there is no mechanism found or used to force him to comply then, and only then, yes, we are actually fucked.  That's when the people have to take to the streets and show Congress, the President, fellow citizens and the rest of the world that Americans want the rule of law and the foundations of our country to stand. That will show which way the political winds blow and the politicians will follow.  Either that or Trump's gestapo will mow down all protestors in cold blood, at which point they can bury me upside down so the whole world can kiss my ass.

Posted
26 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

The immunity decision didn't answer the core question - did Trump violate the law by inciting the Jan. 6th insurrection, among other things? SCOTUS kicked that issue back to the lower court then the case was dropped when he got reelected.  I actually think the court got both cases right. The president does, and should, have broad immunity for official acts. They didn't fully answer the question of what constitutes "official acts." They did suggest that the efforts to get slates of fake electors and inciting the riot were not official acts.  The Colorado ballot case was the longest of longshots from the beginning.  So neither of those cases proves that the Supreme Court has fully bent over for Trump.

You think the Court got it right when it ruled, without any Constitutional text, history, or structure in support of their ruling, that implicit in the Constitution is presidential immunity for assassinating his political rivals? 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
33 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Better make sure there is actual unity in your work unit. If there are Magas or alleged neutrals to be promoted or moved to your position, you'll just be fired. A person with a family shouldn't risk that. A young single person has more freedom.

Boycotts are anonymous and devastating to cash flow. Don't buy any higher-end products. See who owns what.

I'm going to try to pull the Amazon drip IV out of my arm and start ordering direct for most things. I just got a chair from Wayfair. That may go to murderers and Trumpists, but at least it won't go to Bezos.

No one wants my position so I'm not worried about that part.  We're in the midst of a huge layoff so if I survive it I'm not worried about much of anything.  I could probably skate by to my end days if they let me go right now, but I would prefer another four years max to make sure.  Whatever happens, happens.  I'm not going to worry about it one way or the other.

Posted
7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You think the Court got it right when it ruled, without any Constitutional text, history, or structure in support of their ruling, that implicit in the Constitution is presidential immunity for assassinating his political rivals? 

Huh?

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You think the Court got it right when it ruled, without any Constitutional text, history, or structure in support of their ruling, that implicit in the Constitution is presidential immunity for assassinating his political rivals? 

Hyperbole, much?  Ojo is right that immunity for exercise of Article II powers was inevitable.  And some going beyond that, as well, given that the President has been given powers not explicitly set out in Article II in other contexts.

I think the decision went way too far, particularly in regard to use of evidence, but the central core of it I think any court would have found.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Huh?

You said the Court got the immunity decision right. They in effect ruled that the President could assassinate his rivals. That was literally argued in oral arguments and the dissenting justices made clear in their dissent that's how they interpreted the majority's reasoning. 

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Hyperbole, much?

See above. It's not remotely hyperbole.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

You said the Court got the immunity decision right. They in effect ruled that the President could assassinate his rivals. That was literally argued in oral arguments and the dissenting justices made clear in their dissent that's how they interpreted the majority's reasoning. 

See above. It's not remotely hyperbole.

They did not rule that in effect the President could assassinate his rivals.  The dissent was making a point.  C'mon.

Posted
1 minute ago, Ojo Rojo said:

They did not rule that in effect the President could assassinate his rivals.  The dissent was making a point.  C'mon.

You and Twice have terminal cases of lawyer brain. Treatment is available if y'all admit you need help. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You and Twice have terminal cases of lawyer brain. Treatment is available if y'all admit you need help. 

Schitts Creek Wow GIF by CBC

  • Haha 4
Posted
7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I know the argument.  Chief Justice Roberts said it better than I ever could:

"The dissents' positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution's separation of powers and the Court's precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President 'feels empowered to violate federal criminal law,'" he wrote.

Posted
4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

The hypothetical is absolutely correct, and it is BECAUSE of the portion of the ruling that bars evidence of motive.

Is "ordering a drone strike on a person on foreign soil who is accused of supporting terrorist operations against American citizens" 1) a power of the president 2) for which he would have official immunity?  Almost certainly so.

But what if the president "orders a drone strike on a person on foreign soil who is accused of supporting terrorist operations against American citizens".....except that person is REALLY just a dude to whom the president personally owes a lot of money, or is simply a political opponent on an issue the president cares about, like school vouchers?  Those facts -- the true nature of the person, and the true motives of the POTUS (which could be proven by testimony of an aide who states "yes, he said 'we need to kill that guy, he's going to call my $50 million note due next week, and we can't have that'")....cannot be adduced or used.  The sole question is whether the act itself, by its nature, is an official use of power.

And ordering drone strikes is the kind of thing that the POTUS has the power to do.  Against whom, and why?  Well, we can't delve into that.

So, yes, the scope of the POTUS's official immunity goes FAR beyond the scope of immunity granted to other government officials -- federal, state, local, under any set of laws.  The POTUS absolutely, 100%, can exercise a "presidential power" to serve an entirely personal, and illegal end, and he has total immunity now.  The dissent's observation was spot-on and the only logical conclusion.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I know the argument.  Chief Justice Roberts said it better than I ever could:

"The dissents' positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution's separation of powers and the Court's precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President 'feels empowered to violate federal criminal law,'" he wrote.

You notice he doesn't remotely explain how they're wrong?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, wildcat09 said:

You notice he doesn't remotely explain how they're wrong?

Yep.  He essentially says "dudes....just have faith that we won't ever have a POTUS who would do such a heinous thing.  That would never happen."

Famous.  Fucking.  Last.  Words.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I know the argument.  Chief Justice Roberts said it better than I ever could:

"The dissents' positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution's separation of powers and the Court's precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President 'feels empowered to violate federal criminal law,'" he wrote.

wasn't this written during a time when Donald Trump was facing multiple charges for violating federal criminal law?

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I know the argument.  Chief Justice Roberts said it better than I ever could:

"The dissents' positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution's separation of powers and the Court's precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President 'feels empowered to violate federal criminal law,'" he wrote.

Is it really an "extreme hypothetical" that Trump "feels empowered to violate federal law" while conducting his official presidential duties?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You notice he doesn't remotely explain how they're wrong?

 

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The hypothetical is absolutely correct, and it is BECAUSE of the portion of the ruling that bars evidence of motive.

Is "ordering a drone strike on a person on foreign soil who is accused of supporting terrorist operations against American citizens" 1) a power of the president 2) for which he would have official immunity?  Almost certainly so.

But what if the president "orders a drone strike on a person on foreign soil who is accused of supporting terrorist operations against American citizens".....except that person is REALLY just a dude to whom the president personally owes a lot of money, or is simply a political opponent on an issue the president cares about, like school vouchers?  Those facts -- the true nature of the person, and the true motives of the POTUS (which could be proven by testimony of an aide who states "yes, he said 'we need to kill that guy, he's going to call my $50 million note due next week, and we can't have that'")....cannot be adduced or used.  The sole question is whether the act itself, by its nature, is an official use of power.

And ordering drone strikes is the kind of thing that the POTUS has the power to do.  Against whom, and why?  Well, we can't delve into that.

So, yes, the scope of the POTUS's official immunity goes FAR beyond the scope of immunity granted to other government officials -- federal, state, local, under any set of laws.  The POTUS absolutely, 100%, can exercise a "presidential power" to serve an entirely personal, and illegal end, and he has total immunity now.  The dissent's observation was spot-on and the only logical conclusion.

A court, especially the Supreme Court, doesn't rule on hypotheticals.  There has to be an actual case or controversy. So, I guess if you are a pessimist or whatever, then you could assume the court would determine murdering political opponents is an official act and that the President is immune for prosecution of it, but we don't really know that.

Posted
2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Is it really an "extreme hypothetical" that Trump "feels empowered to violate federal law" while conducting his official presidential duties?

Bingo again.  "HE'S FUCKING DOING IT RIGHT NOW!" means it's definitely not an extreme hypothetical.

In a timeline that has limitless irony -- and we may be in one -- the Roberts court issues a ruling that pisses Trump off, and Trump has his personal jackboots execute Roberts, as Roberts says "but this is an extreme hypothetical that would never happen!"  And of course, what remains of the SCOTUS (a court of two -- Alito and Thomas) says "following our precedent, the president is immune, because he ordered law enforcement to take action against a suspected terrorist, John Roberts."

Posted
6 minutes ago, Foosters said:

wasn't this written during a time when Donald Trump was facing multiple charges for violating federal criminal law?

 

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Is it really an "extreme hypothetical" that Trump "feels empowered to violate federal law" while conducting his official presidential duties?

Lord.  Am I really defending the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Donald Trump here?  Fuck me.

You have to read the whole sentence together.  "Extreme hypothetical" = murdering political opponents.  "Violating federal criminal law" = of which murdering political opponents would be an example.  Roberts wasn't saying the hypotheticals were merely violations of federal criminal law (which he was actively engaged in at the time), but extreme (like murder) and hypothetical (things that haven't actually happened).

Posted
11 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 

Lord.  Am I really defending the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Donald Trump here?  Fuck me.

This really should be the giant flashing neon light cluing you in that you're in the wrong here.

Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This really should be the giant flashing neon light cluing you in that you're in the wrong here.

That it isn't should be your clue.

Posted
27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The hypothetical is absolutely correct, and it is BECAUSE of the portion of the ruling that bars evidence of motive.

Is "ordering a drone strike on a person on foreign soil who is accused of supporting terrorist operations against American citizens" 1) a power of the president 2) for which he would have official immunity?  Almost certainly so.

But what if the president "orders a drone strike on a person on foreign soil who is accused of supporting terrorist operations against American citizens".....except that person is REALLY just a dude to whom the president personally owes a lot of money, or is simply a political opponent on an issue the president cares about, like school vouchers?  Those facts -- the true nature of the person, and the true motives of the POTUS (which could be proven by testimony of an aide who states "yes, he said 'we need to kill that guy, he's going to call my $50 million note due next week, and we can't have that'")....cannot be adduced or used.  The sole question is whether the act itself, by its nature, is an official use of power.

And ordering drone strikes is the kind of thing that the POTUS has the power to do.  Against whom, and why?  Well, we can't delve into that.

So, yes, the scope of the POTUS's official immunity goes FAR beyond the scope of immunity granted to other government officials -- federal, state, local, under any set of laws.  The POTUS absolutely, 100%, can exercise a "presidential power" to serve an entirely personal, and illegal end, and he has total immunity now.  The dissent's observation was spot-on and the only logical conclusion.

Well, I see it somewhat differently.  The Commander-in-Chief power is not an exclusive power, it's shared with Congress in the war powers, including issuing letters of reprisal and marque.  Thus, it would be only presumptively immune, if that.  Sorry Obama.

But your evidence point stands and it is the most objectionable and objectively wrong part of the decision.

Posted
1 minute ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 

A court, especially the Supreme Court, doesn't rule on hypotheticals.  There has to be an actual case or controversy. So, I guess if you are a pessimist or whatever, then you could assume the court would determine murdering political opponents is an official act and that the President is immune for prosecution of it, but we don't really know that.

I LITERALLY just listened to an argument an hour ago where the justices asked numerous hypotheticals to help them understand the scope of the issues and the potential impact of the decision requested of them.  They don't RULE on hypotheticals, but they 100% consider them in evaluating the reasonableness of their potential ruling.

And again, it's not that the act of "murdering a rival" is the question....the issue is that they - prophylactically, without ANY legal basis - prohibited the consideration of any evidence of whether the POTUS-ordered drone strike on Cal the Creditor was an action against a legitimate target (a terrorist actor) or whether its true purpose was to take out a man to whom the POTUS owed $50 million.  That is, the SCOTUS prohibited a future SCOTUS from even CONSIDERING the actual motive by barring all evidence of the motive.

That's where the decision goes 100% off the rails.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I LITERALLY just listened to an argument an hour ago where the justices asked numerous hypotheticals to help them understand the scope of the issues and the potential impact of the decision requested of them.  They don't RULE on hypotheticals, but they 100% consider them in evaluating the reasonableness of their potential ruling.

And again, it's not that the act of "murdering a rival" is the question....the issue is that they - prophylactically, without ANY legal basis - prohibited the consideration of any evidence of whether the POTUS-ordered drone strike on Cal the Creditor was an action against a legitimate target (a terrorist actor) or whether its true purpose was to take out a man to whom the POTUS owed $50 million.  That is, the SCOTUS prohibited a future SCOTUS from even CONSIDERING the actual motive by barring all evidence of the motive.

That's where the decision goes 100% off the rails.

I don't disagree that there is a real danger, but let's just do as Roberts suggested and wait until the President actually orders a political rival (or creditor) to be killed and take it up then.

  • Haha 2
Posted
Just now, Ojo Rojo said:

I don't disagree that there is a real danger, but let's just do as Roberts suggested and wait until the President actually orders a political rival (or creditor) to be killed and take it up then.

It's kinda too late at that point. You really think once he starts offing people who piss him off the justices are going to be willing to stand up against him? 

As to SCOTUS not ruling on hypotheticals, c'mon man. They literally rule on made-up facts when they find it convenient. It didn't matter to them one bit that the underlying factual allegations in 303 Creative were lies.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I don't disagree that there is a real danger, but let's just do as Roberts suggested and wait until the President actually orders a political rival (or creditor) to be killed and take it up then.

That is not how it works, and you know it.  Because as Wildcat correctly notes, by then it is WAY too fucking late.

You avoid having a car careen through an intersection, killing pedestrians, by NOT putting up a big bright green light but saying "let's not worry about a car driving through that obvious green light we just gave until AFTER it runs over all the pedestrians."  Considering the consequences of a ruling is an element of issuing it.

And by holding that evidence of motive is completely inadmissible, the SCOTUS absolutely set up a sequence and gave the green light for a POTUS to 1) use a "presidential power" to 2) serve an entirely personal and illegal end.

A drone strike on a suspected terrorist is not illegal.

A drone strike on a person who owes you money, killing them to extinguish the debt, is absolutely illegal.

And the SCOTUS just made it illegal to inquire into the actual reason for said drone strike.  That was wrong, unspeakably dangerous, and may well be THE SCOTUS case that ends up ending the Republic at some point.  Because once the event happens, it's far too late to take action.  Stop being obtuse.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
12 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I don't disagree that there is a real danger, but let's just do as Roberts suggested and wait until the President actually orders a political rival (or creditor) to be killed and take it up then.

Dumb post is dumb

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
45 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 

A court, especially the Supreme Court, doesn't rule on hypotheticals.  There has to be an actual case or controversy. So, I guess if you are a pessimist or whatever, then you could assume the court would determine murdering political opponents is an official act and that the President is immune for prosecution of it, but we don't really know that.

Guess you missed the cases they ruled on that were based on nothing more than hypothetical what ifs ala website design for a gay marriage and not being able to pray on a football field. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted

After watching the Elon/Trump Oval Office video, I had this fever dream of Trump resigning at some point prior to the end of his term and naming Elon as acting president. And no one stopped him. With the way things are going, I don't even think it's that far fetched of a nightmare.

Posted
20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's kinda too late at that point. You really think once he starts offing people who piss him off the justices are going to be willing to stand up against him? 

As to SCOTUS not ruling on hypotheticals, c'mon man. They literally rule on made-up facts when they find it convenient. It didn't matter to them one bit that the underlying factual allegations in 303 Creative were lies.

 

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That is not how it works, and you know it.  Because as Wildcat correctly notes, by then it is WAY too fucking late.

You avoid having a car careen through an intersection, killing pedestrians, by NOT putting up a big bright green light but saying "let's not worry about a car driving through that obvious green light we just gave until AFTER it runs over all the pedestrians."  Considering the consequences of a ruling is an element of issuing it.

And by holding that evidence of motive is completely inadmissible, the SCOTUS absolutely set up a sequence and gave the green light for a POTUS to 1) use a "presidential power" to 2) serve an entirely personal and illegal end.

A drone strike on a suspected terrorist is not illegal.

A drone strike on a person who owes you money, killing them to extinguish the debt, is absolutely illegal.

And the SCOTUS just made it illegal to inquire into the actual reason for said drone strike.  That was wrong, unspeakably dangerous, and may well be THE SCOTUS case that ends up ending the Republic at some point.  Because once the event happens, it's far too late to take action.  Stop being obtuse.

 

11 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Dumb post is dumb

Some of y'all's sarcasm meters are broken.

Posted
58 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 

A court, especially the Supreme Court, doesn't rule on hypotheticals.  There has to be an actual case or controversy. So, I guess if you are a pessimist or whatever, then you could assume the court would determine murdering political opponents is an official act and that the President is immune for prosecution of it, but we don't really know that.

spacer.png

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

to the question of where does the army stand, request to counselors present to lawsplain this statement from that article:

"they're honorable officers and they are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice not to obey unlawful orders"

Posted
1 hour ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 

A court, especially the Supreme Court, doesn't rule on hypotheticals.  There has to be an actual case or controversy. So, I guess if you are a pessimist or whatever, then you could assume the court would determine murdering political opponents is an official act and that the President is immune for prosecution of it, but we don't really know that.

not to be needlessly pedantic but that's not true as proven in the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis matter. it just depends on how badly they want to rule and if alito and thomas want to implement their vision for the country, they will take on cases with completely made up facts and a appellant with no standing.

  • Hook 'Em 4


×
×
  • Create New...