The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden is speaking on this decision tonight. Wonder how many lies he will tell about what this ruling covers?

I don't think it was forceful enough. He should have said I can do this, this and that, but I will not. At least not right now.

No respect.
This court is a banana republic court. Their decisions are based on the highest payer.

The court ruled properly in this case.

The court has been wrong all year from criminalizing the homeless, to allowing elected officials to take bribes, to usurping executive decision making and moving it to the courts to decide policies such as epa, irs, irs, etc, to now granting absolute immunity to a president. No the court did not and has not ruled properly in a long time. And by the way, I personally benefit from some of these awful rulings made by the corrupt SCOTUS.

The court was right in all of those cases as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What types of things of value can be bestowed with official acts? Ambassadorships and Pardons were discussed but what else? Any money? Other valuables? Property?

violations of the emollient clause, insurrections, inciting a riot, perjury to name a few.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that one side is salivating at the thought that they could have a candidate be king while the other side is heartbroken because of what it means for democracy and this country is all you really need to know about who you should vote for this election.... I'm talking up and down the ticket not just the president.

Oh give it a rest. We’ve been rightly saying that the media and DNC has been lying about a lot of things over the past several years from Covid to Russia and now Biden’s state of mind. And we have been right. You say you fear for our democracy; well having a political party keeping such important information about Biden from voters is not democracy, it’s oligarchy.

Maybe start listening to the other side of the aisle and aim for some common ground instead of the dark demonization.

We have no common ground. None. There’s nothing to talk about when we don’t even agree on what’s real or true or right.

I don’t believe in a unitary executive, and I don’t believe in “originalism,” and I don’t believe even “originalists”actually believe in originalism except as far as it bolsters their personal beliefs, and I sure as sh** don’t believe that the founders believed in a unitary executive, aka, King.

You’re arguing against strawmen. Maybe open your eyes and start there.

You’re speaking gibberish. Brain worm got you again? That’s rough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that one side is salivating at the thought that they could have a candidate be king while the other side is heartbroken because of what it means for democracy and this country is all you really need to know about who you should vote for this election.... I'm talking up and down the ticket not just the president.

Oh give it a rest. We’ve been rightly saying that the media and DNC has been lying about a lot of things over the past several years from Covid to Russia and now Biden’s state of mind. And we have been right. You say you fear for our democracy; well having a political party keeping such important information about Biden from voters is not democracy, it’s oligarchy.

Maybe start listening to the other side of the aisle and aim for some common ground instead of the dark demonization.

Nope. Never dance with the devil and his spawns.

Enjoy the loss.

You're so tunnel vision that you don't realize that nobody wins, at least not people who have to work for a living and have nowhere else to go. Maybe this doesn't apply to you and you can be so myopic.

The economy was significantly better under Trump. I enjoyed going to the grocery store in a pre inflation era.

You realize it's been happening worldwide, right?

You know that Biden insisted inflation was transitory right? And that he was warned he was adding money to quickly to the post Covid economy and it would lead to inflation, right? And that he ignored all of those warnings from economists and pundits, right? And that the fact that inflation around the world exists doesn’t mean that Biden’s policies didn’t make the US trajectory worse, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

Neither of these actions is covered by this ruling. Those are not "official" duties. Those are crimes, regardless of who is doing them.

If a crime has no enforcement possibility then is it really a crime?

Crime absolutely has enforcement possibility.
Tell me exactly how assassinating Justices on SCOTUS is an official act.

The President can order the military to assassinate anyone - he is the Commander-in-Chief so any order he gives is an official act - and no one is allowed to look at the President's motive and the evidence of the official act is inadmissible.

Only inadmissible if it's an official act. If it's not an official act, then go ahead and inquire about motive and evidence.

See? The test isn't very workable. Not a big deal since it's not going to come up very often.

Just assassinations and stuff. not a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that one side is salivating at the thought that they could have a candidate be king while the other side is heartbroken because of what it means for democracy and this country is all you really need to know about who you should vote for this election.... I'm talking up and down the ticket not just the president.

Oh give it a rest. We’ve been rightly saying that the media and DNC has been lying about a lot of things over the past several years from Covid to Russia and now Biden’s state of mind. And we have been right. You say you fear for our democracy; well having a political party keeping such important information about Biden from voters is not democracy, it’s oligarchy.

Maybe start listening to the other side of the aisle and aim for some common ground instead of the dark demonization.

Nope. Never dance with the devil and his spawns.

Enjoy the loss.

You're so tunnel vision that you don't realize that nobody wins, at least not people who have to work for a living and have nowhere else to go. Maybe this doesn't apply to you and you can be so myopic.

The economy was significantly better under Trump. I enjoyed going to the grocery store in a pre inflation era.

No, actually it wasn't. It was prerecession territory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What types of things of value can be bestowed with official acts? Ambassadorships and Pardons were discussed but what else? Any money? Other valuables? Property?

violations of the emollient clause, insurrections, inciting a riot, perjury to name a few.

There's that word again insurrection. You would have been on the British side during the Boston Tea Party. Dry up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

Neither of these actions is covered by this ruling. Those are not "official" duties. Those are crimes, regardless of who is doing them.

If a crime has no enforcement possibility then is it really a crime?

Crime absolutely has enforcement possibility.
Tell me exactly how assassinating Justices on SCOTUS is an official act.

The President can order the military to assassinate anyone - he is the Commander-in-Chief so any order he gives is an official act - and no one is allowed to look at the President's motive and the evidence of the official act is inadmissible.

Only inadmissible if it's an official act. If it's not an official act, then go ahead and inquire about motive and evidence.

See? The test isn't very workable. Not a big deal since it's not going to come up very often.

Any military order by POTUS is a core Constitutional responsibility ---> absolutely immune official act

Probably less messy for POTUS to just declare someone a national security risk and detain them at a black site. Again, core Constitutional power, so unreviewable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that one side is salivating at the thought that they could have a candidate be king while the other side is heartbroken because of what it means for democracy and this country is all you really need to know about who you should vote for this election.... I'm talking up and down the ticket not just the president.

Oh give it a rest. We’ve been rightly saying that the media and DNC has been lying about a lot of things over the past several years from Covid to Russia and now Biden’s state of mind. And we have been right. You say you fear for our democracy; well having a political party keeping such important information about Biden from voters is not democracy, it’s oligarchy.

Maybe start listening to the other side of the aisle and aim for some common ground instead of the dark demonization.

We have no common ground. None. There’s nothing to talk about when we don’t even agree on what’s real or true or right.

I don’t believe in a unitary executive, and I don’t believe in “originalism,” and I don’t believe even “originalists”actually believe in originalism except as far as it bolsters their personal beliefs, and I sure as sh** don’t believe that the founders believed in a unitary executive, aka, King.

You’re arguing against strawmen. Maybe open your eyes and start there.

You’re speaking gibberish. Brain worm got you again? That’s rough.

It makes you more comfortable to demonize the right than to look at the deception of the DNC. You’d rather tell yourself that the Republicans are evil and want a king than recognize that the office of the presidency has immunity in official acts that protects not only Trump but Biden as well. Fine.

But at least I know who I am voting for. Can you truly say the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that one side is salivating at the thought that they could have a candidate be king while the other side is heartbroken because of what it means for democracy and this country is all you really need to know about who you should vote for this election.... I'm talking up and down the ticket not just the president.

Oh give it a rest. We’ve been rightly saying that the media and DNC has been lying about a lot of things over the past several years from Covid to Russia and now Biden’s state of mind. And we have been right. You say you fear for our democracy; well having a political party keeping such important information about Biden from voters is not democracy, it’s oligarchy.

Maybe start listening to the other side of the aisle and aim for some common ground instead of the dark demonization.

Nope. Never dance with the devil and his spawns.

Enjoy the loss.

You're so tunnel vision that you don't realize that nobody wins, at least not people who have to work for a living and have nowhere else to go. Maybe this doesn't apply to you and you can be so myopic.

The economy was significantly better under Trump. I enjoyed going to the grocery store in a pre inflation era.

No, actually it wasn't. It was prerecession territory

Not before Covid it wasn’t. But you knew that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

Neither of these actions is covered by this ruling. Those are not "official" duties. Those are crimes, regardless of who is doing them.

If a crime has no enforcement possibility then is it really a crime?

Crime absolutely has enforcement possibility.
Tell me exactly how assassinating Justices on SCOTUS is an official act.

The President can order the military to assassinate anyone - he is the Commander-in-Chief so any order he gives is an official act - and no one is allowed to look at the President's motive and the evidence of the official act is inadmissible.

How fascinating that Obama …asserted this same exact thing.

“The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat… “Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply.”

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't it be less messy to just buy the necessary votes in the swing states? There must be some official act that would be valuable enough to guarantee a big majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden is speaking on this decision tonight. Wonder how many lies he will tell about what this ruling covers?

I don't think it was forceful enough. He should have said I can do this, this and that, but I will not. At least not right now.

No respect.
This court is a banana republic court. Their decisions are based on the highest payer.

The court ruled properly in this case.

The court has been wrong all year from criminalizing the homeless, to allowing elected officials to take bribes, to usurping executive decision making and moving it to the courts to decide policies such as epa, irs, irs, etc, to now granting absolute immunity to a president. No the court did not and has not ruled properly in a long time. And by the way, I personally benefit from some of these awful rulings made by the corrupt SCOTUS.

The court was right in all of those cases as well.

Well the prosecutors need to just drop all those charges against Menendez, and don't bother prosecuting politicians for corruption and bribery. The law is not for thee just me. There is no such thing as justice for all because this country never did believe that all men were created equal.

[Anonymous]

Do you all not remember that Obama directed the CIA to kill an American in Yemen who had never been charged with or convicted of a crime?

Do you think in the presidency of Trump, launching federal charges against Obama for this murder would not be condemned by the left?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What types of things of value can be bestowed with official acts? Ambassadorships and Pardons were discussed but what else? Any money? Other valuables? Property?

violations of the emollient clause, insurrections, inciting a riot, perjury to name a few.

There's that word again insurrection. You would have been on the British side during the Boston Tea Party. Dry up.

And you would have been Yellow-bellied Confederate.