The Supremes

[Sawbonz 28,201]

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

 

Do you seriously not understand the context of immunity from criminal prosecution vs. executive decision making in general? If your skepticism is that the court is bias and illegitimate, it just underscores that anything Biden does that is arguably outside of the executive function will definitely be reversed by SCOTUS (like student loan forgiveness) even if he's immune from criminal prosecution (which of course this SCOTUS would find that it doesn't apply to Biden, because reasons).

Man, you law dogs are going to understand eventually. I kind of feel sorry for you at this point.

[Red Five 41,703]

1 minute ago, Goofyboy said:

SCOTUS would be all new people appointed by Biden and loyal to him. So, when the case gets all the way to the new SCOTUS, they say he’s immune and good to go. Thats how a nice dictatorship works.

Trump will replace Alito and Thomas with Aileen Cannon and some 35 year-old psycho judge none of us has ever heard of. And they'll have the majority for the next generation or two. 

['stache 22,131]

Just now, Goofyboy said:

SCOTUS would be all new people appointed by him, loyal to him. So, when the case gets all the way to the new SCOTUS, they say he’s immune and good to go. Thats how a nice dictatorship works.

You're talking about something that has nothing to do with today's SCOTUS immunity decision. When you say "the case gets all the way to the new SCOTUS" you would have to be talking about a criminal prosecution, and what you're talking about would not result in a criminal prosecution in the first place, so immunity has nothing to do with it. In fact, the dictatorship you're referring to would pretty much take the judiciary out of everything, especially any concept of criminal prosecutions against the dictator, that's how dictatorships work. See Netanyahu's recent actions limiting the authority of the judiciary in the first place. 

[Goofyboy 3,431]

Trump will replace Alito and Thomas with Aileen Cannon and some 35 year-old psycho judge none of us has ever heard of. And they'll have the majority for the next generation or two. 

Exactly. Biden should just beat him to the punch.

[Sawbonz 28,201]

Just now, 'stache said:

You're talking about something that has nothing to do with today's SCOTUS immunity decision

No he’s not. What you know about how things work is not true anymore 

[Gap03 3,386]

2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Trump will replace Alito and Thomas with Aileen Cannon and some 35 year-old psycho judge none of us has ever heard of. And they'll have the majority for the next generation or two. 

Even worse, it's going to be Matthew Kacsmaryk, the 47-yr old loon in West Texas ALL of us have heard of by now.

['stache 22,131]

9 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Man, you law dogs are going to understand eventually. I kind of feel sorry for you at this point.

 

9 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Trump will replace Alito and Thomas with Aileen Cannon and some 35 year-old psycho judge none of us has ever heard of. And they'll have the majority for the next generation or two. 

And if he gets away with it, it'll have nothing to do with immunity from criminal prosecution, because he'd never be charged with any crimes. It'd be a complete breakdown of constitutional checks and balances, which is the real threat we're facing. An entire political party is not only enabling this, but promoting it. In this scenario, who would be criminally prosecuting Trump? Nobody, criminal immunity would therefore be irrelevant. 

Also, I was addressing the people saying that Biden should do this, or Biden should do that. Surely you agree that this SCOTUS under its ruling today would never use it to benefit Biden in any way, right? That's the whole fucking point of this SCOTUS being fucking rogue as fuck.

Edited July 1 by 'stache

[Sawbonz 28,201]

Just now, 'stache said:

 

And if he gets away with it, it'll have nothing to do with immunity from criminal prosecution, because he'd never be charged with any crimes. It'd be a complete breakdown of constitutional checks and balances, which is the real threat we're facing. An entire political party is not only enabling this, but promoting it. In this scenario, who would be criminally prosecuting Trump? Nobody, criminal immunity would therefore be irrelevant. 

Literally, all of this breakdown is happening through the judiciary. The fact that you cannot see this is mind-boggling.

[Sawbonz 28,201]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Literally, all of this breakdown is happening through the judiciary. The fact that you cannot see this is mind-boggling.

One side protected, but not bound by the law, the other side bound, but not protected.  
 

at its core the prevention of that relies on the courts, and the courts have failed

['stache 22,131]

7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Literally, all of this breakdown is happening through the judiciary. The fact that you cannot see this is mind-boggling.

WTF are you talking about? Of course I see it, this SCOTUS is rogue as fuck. I honestly don't even know what you're talking about anymore. Surely, you agree that Biden can't just do whatever he wants and get away with it because of immunity from criminal prosecutions, right? This SCOTUS would strike it all down, because criminal immunity has nothing to do with judicial checks on executive powers and decision making. They'll reverse Biden at every turn, and rubber stamp Trump. Again, it has nothing to do with criminal immunity. If Biden is charged with a crime later, the decision won't protect him either, because this SCOTUS is nothing more than another political branch. They'll just say whatever he did wasn't "official", ergo, no immunity. 

Edited July 1 by 'stache

[Sawbonz 28,201]

Just now, 'stache said:

WTF are you talking about? Of course I see it, this SCOTUS is rogue as fuck. I honestly don't even know what you're talking about anymore. Surely, you agree that Biden can't just do whatever he wants and get away with it because of immunity from criminal prosecutions, right? This SCOTUS would strike it all down, because criminal immunity has nothing to do with judicial checks on executive powers and decision making. They'll reverse Biden at every turn, and rubber stamp Trump. Again, it has nothing to do with criminal immunity. If Biden is charged with a crime later, the decision won't protect him either, because this SCOTUS is nothing more than another political branch. 

Biden doing anything he wants includes jailing six Supreme Court justices and appointing six new ones. That’s how this should end. It sucks because it won’t, but yes, the judicial branch is at fault here

['stache 22,131]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Biden doing anything he wants includes jailing six Supreme Court justices and appointing six new ones. That’s how this should end. It sucks because it won’t, but yes, the judicial branch is at fault here

Sure, but immunity from criminal prosecution would have nothing to do with it, that's my only point.

[softlynow 1,894]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

One side protected, but not bound by the law, the other side bound, but not protected.  
 

at its core the prevention of that relies on the courts, and the courts have failed

Yep.

Our little experiment only carries on as long as the people buy in. One half of the electorate was already ready to be done with the republic. 6 justices are trying their best to persuade the other half.

Long live King Biden I! He should act like it lest he be responsible for Dotard I.

[Sawbonz 28,201]

Just now, 'stache said:

Sure, but immunity from criminal prosecution would have nothing to do with it, that's my only point.

Goddamnit

[softlynow 1,894]

3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

WTF are you talking about? Of course I see it, this SCOTUS is rogue as fuck. I honestly don't even know what you're talking about anymore. Surely, you agree that Biden can't just do whatever he wants and get away with it because of immunity from criminal prosecutions, right? This SCOTUS would strike it all down, because criminal immunity has nothing to do with judicial checks on executive powers and decision making. They'll reverse Biden at every turn, and rubber stamp Trump. Again, it has nothing to do with criminal immunity. If Biden is charged with a crime later, the decision won't protect him either, because this SCOTUS is nothing more than another political branch. They'll just say whatever he did wasn't "official", ergo, no immunity. 

He's talking about SCOTUS deligitimizing the federal government to the point that only pure power matters. Biden can do what he wants, within the practical limits of his power. He is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts. To the extent that he can direct people to act, he is unrestrained.

[956 Worldwide 35,589]

As I understand it, a POTUS can announce in his SOTU on television that he raped and murdered someone and that statement can’t be introduced in court.

WTF are we doing as a country anymore. 

[HenryJames 67,323]

[Pancho 46,269]

27 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Trump will replace Alito and Thomas with Aileen Cannon and some 35 year-old psycho judge none of us has ever heard of. And they'll have the majority for the next generation or two. 

It’ll be someone from texags who donates a lot

[956 Worldwide 35,589]

1 minute ago, HenryJames said:

He needs to announce that he’s pardoning Hunter lol. 

[chainsaw 10,283]

"Although it is not easily found in its text, today we reach only the narrow holding that the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, and Revelation are, in fact, part of the United States Constitution. We also hold that the deference previously given to agency interpretations of law under the Chevron doctrine was actually intended by the Founding Fathers to be owed to the Southern Baptist Church and its interpretations of all questions of law, including those questions arising under the Constitution. We therefore VACATE the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals and REMAND the case to Pastor Robert Jeffress with instructions to determine the prescribed method and amount of corporeal punishment set forth in the text of the Constitution, by which we mean the Book of Luke, Chapter 12."

['stache 22,131]

10 minutes ago, softlynow said:

He's talking about SCOTUS deligitimizing the federal government to the point that only pure power matters. Biden can do what he wants, within the practical limits of his power. He is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts. To the extent that he can direct people to act, he is unrestrained.

The first sentence is absolutely true, but the rest is not. The courts can still restrain a president from enacting decisions that are outside the executive function. The courts said Biden's student loan forgiveness program was outside of executive powers. That was not a criminal prosecution and immunity plays no role in that analysis whatsoever. How can anyone possibly believe that today's decision could benefit Biden in any way whatsoever? If trump wins and has Biden prosecuted for his border policy, SCOTUS will just say it wasn't an official act, because reasons. That's the problem, SCOTUS has abdicated it's role as a check on executive power and has become a rubberstamp for magastan.

[Longhorn94 2,501]

55 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I obviously don't like this clearly political decision from SCOTUS, but I think people have it really wrong saying he can do this or do that without repercussion. The immunity is from criminal prosecution. The courts can still reverse any actions the president takes that is not authorized. If he has justices or lawmakers arrested and imprisoned, those people can still petition the courts that the act was outside of executive authority, and they'd be right. The courts can then reverse the decision (like they did Biden's loan forgiveness program which SCOTUS held was not within executive powers). The immunity would only prevent criminal prosecution against the president for kidnapping or whatever the criminal equivalent is of false imprisonment.

pffffffttttt - that's easy. he tells the FBI / CIA / Seal Team 6 to assassinate the justices and all heads of the opposing party. now, who is going to reverse him and they cant prosecute him because his speech to those groups of the executive branch are part of his core powers and thus receive absolute immunity.

[Sawbonz 28,201]

1 minute ago, Longhorn94 said:

pffffffttttt - that's easy. he tells the FBI / CIA / Seal Team 6 to assassinate the justices and all heads of the opposing party. now, who is going to reverse him and they cant prosecute him because his speech to those groups of the executive branch are part of his core powers and thus receive absolute immunity.

He doesn’t even have to do that. Take the student loan issue. What is to stop Biden from just ignoring the court order?

[Longhorn94 2,501]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

He doesn’t even have to do that. Take the student loan issue. What is to stop Biden from just ignoring the court order?

true. and since it would be part of his core duties, he is immune from any criminal prosecution! 

[DDD Dad 14,644]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I think the under-reported revelation from the decisions of the past week is that bribery-for-pardons is pretty much completely legal, at least for the president being bribed.  There's no question that the pardon power is a core constitutional presidential function.  So what if he takes a payment in deciding how to exercise that function?

For my part, I'm moving my money out of my "flee to a non-extradition country" fund and into my new "bribe Trump" fund.

You don't have enough (I know I definitely don't).

[softlynow 1,894]

12 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The first sentence is absolutely true, but the rest is not. The courts can still restrain a president from enacting decisions that are outside the executive function. The courts said Biden's student loan forgiveness program was outside of executive powers. That was not a criminal prosecution and immunity plays no role in that analysis whatsoever. How can anyone possibly believe that today's decision could benefit Biden in any way whatsoever? If trump wins and has Biden prosecuted for his border policy, SCOTUS will just say it wasn't an official act, because reasons. That's the problem, SCOTUS has abdicated it's role as a check on executive power and has become a rubberstamp for magastan.

The Courts can restrain, you say? Them and what army?

[miguelito 11,500]

Biden should do two chicks at the same time.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6,594]

Just now, miguelito said:

Biden should do two chicks at the same time.

He should promise any man that votes for him that.  He would win in a landslide. 

[Gap03 3,386]

15 minutes ago, softlynow said:

The Courts can restrain, you say? Them and what army?

Wait a minute - the Supreme Court doesn't have an army.  I guess that means they need to shut the fuck up ...

 

Edited July 1 by Gap03

[DDD Dad 14,644]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

I'm not saying it's not as bad as it seems, I'm saying that Biden can't just start making governmental decisions under the guise of immunity. SCOTUS would still undo anything that is outside the executive power, and yeah, if he's charged with a crime, they'd probably call it not an official act, because Biden, so the decision protects only Donald Trump, period. 

['stache 22,131]

9 minutes ago, softlynow said:

The Courts can restrain, you say? Them and what army?

That’s the right question, having nothing to do with criminal immunity. If the military had backed Trump in 2020 there would have been no transition of power.

[Francisco 2.0 32,585]

 

 

 

[Biff Tannen 46,151]

1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

What could go wrong?

[TwiceHorn 32,072]

10 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

They aren’t conservatives anymore, and neither are the FedSoc judges. We need to stop pretending that there’s some kind of mainline American thought tradition at work here.

I will absolutely buy that for a dollar.  When I said "conservatives," I meant as that term seems to be used today to mostly label retrograde statists.

And "small government" was in quotes because it is meaningless to these conservatives.

[chainsaw 10,283]

[Gap03 3,386]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

What could go wrong?

"Well, akshually, the military should still refuse the illegal order - it's just that the President has immunity related to the illegal order.  And would never be removed by our dysfunctional Congress.  And would probably have immunity for ordering other troops to murder the military guy who refused the order.   Soooo, it pretty much works out exactly how we would want it to work ..."

/ Lawdogsplaining why we shouldn't be worried

[Pods 7,637]

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

That's the real problem with shifting the "rule of law" window downward: that new spot becomes the de facto rule.

If you're playing football, and your opponent starts having their DL stab your OL when they rush the QB, and the refs decide "that's ok," then the NEW rule is "DL can stab the OL."  The rule is NOT "let's bitch at the ref and see if he'll change his mind and enforce the rules we all thought were in place."

That's why what the entire GQP has done is so fucking dangerous.  They think they're just changing the rules for themselves.  No.  They are changing them for everyone.  And while it always takes time for the opposition to wake up and start playing by those rules.....it happens, eventually.  So, if the rules are "there are no rules, use violence however you want," you will be a victim of those rules, one day or another.

One thing you can always count on with fascists, they eventually come for you. It's just how far down the list you are, which changes at the whims of the dictator. 

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

 

[Pancho 46,269]

who was the radical republican on this website who assured us that trunp and his anti-Americans on the Supreme Court would not overturn Roe, Obergefell, and Loving and we were idiots for thinking something like that as it was the law of the land?

1 down, 2 more to go! (And those 2 are coming)

[Neonmoon 38,130]

ominous by Sotomayor. 

[immamac 44,320]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

ominous by Sotomayor. 

I honestly have no idea how people can be so fucking checked out what is going on. 

[disgustipated 39]

'The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.'  This seems from my non legal trained mind, perplexing if not contradictory.  

'Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.' So a President has free rein to coordinate any illegal activity via the Justice department with out impunity?     

[Dnaguy 12,612]

19 minutes ago, immamac said:

I honestly have no idea how people can be so fucking checked out what is going on. 

Yeah well the Immigrant trafficking Instagram groomers are turning the kids they don’t abort into trans people who want to take away your guns and writing books about it.

Senile Joe Biden is pulling the strings while the Obama and his handlers are working behind the scenes with their Jewish space lasers to cover your eyes.

Court decisions like this are just there to distract from the real issues

[C-Man 27,777]

Biden speaks on today’s SCOTUS ruling

https://www.threads.net/@aaron.rupar/post/C85jjIFgxAh/?xmt=AQGzyqgbfcrYARzyPKaO_pHYEeT19DcoMM2A_qjLcPXYrw

[CTC2 2,865]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

I'm not saying it's not as bad as it seems, I'm saying that Biden can't just start making governmental decisions under the guise of immunity. SCOTUS would still undo anything that is outside the executive power, and yeah, if he's charged with a crime, they'd probably call it not an official act, because Biden, so the decision protects only Donald Trump, period. 

If what you are saying is that this SCOTUS won’t apply the law the same way to Biden as they would Trump, than I agree. The question then becomes what to do about it. 

[tx 3 putt 78,668]

2 hours ago, Red Five said:

Trump will replace Alito and Thomas with Aileen Cannon and some 35 year-old psycho judge none of us has ever heard of. And they'll have the majority for the next generation or two. 

James Ho 

https://fedsoc.org/contributors/james-ho

[CTC2 2,865]

43 minutes ago, immamac said:

I honestly have no idea how people can be so fucking checked out what is going on. 

Americans are for the most part suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect. 

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

James Ho 

https://fedsoc.org/contributors/james-ho

That guy is far more dangerous than most people contemplate. 

['stache 22,131]

1 hour ago, Gap03 said:

"Well, akshually, the military should still refuse the illegal order - it's just that the President has immunity related to the illegal order.  And would never be removed by our dysfunctional Congress.  And would probably have immunity for ordering other troops to murder the military guy who refused the order.   Soooo, it pretty much works out exactly how we would want it to work ..."

/ Lawdogsplaining why we shouldn't be worried

Yours damn right they should refuse, like AG Barr refusing to execute on Trumps plan to overturn the election. Biden only took office because the republican SOS in Georgia and Arizona refused to do what he asked. It’s been said before, democracy requires people in power to act with a little bit of good faith, that’s the true threat. If the military agrees to execute upon illegal orders (say block polling stations in Philadelphia and Detroit and shoot people who try to vote) we’re fucked anyway. It’s literal banana republic shit. As has been said, every accusation is a confession with these assholes. 

[Francisco 2.0 32,585]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

I honestly have no idea how people can be so fucking checked out what is going on. 

 

Well, you see.   Tik Tok.  Or Real Housewives of Whatever Suburb.  Or any number of mind altering entertainment options that are more fun than "news" (or fake news, as it were).

[tx 3 putt 78,668]

22 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

 

That guy is far more dangerous than most people contemplate. 

he’s a 10000% lock

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,453]

It's been what... ten hours or so since the immunity ruling came down?  Why are dotard, McConnell, Cruz, Hawley, Alito, Thomas, etc still alive?