Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the constitution never said it forbids abortion restrictions in 1972. Judges made it up.

Judges make stuff up I guess.

Republican judges make stuff up to protect the powerful.

You disagree with their interpretation of the law. Eh, it happens.

The judges in 1973 literally made up Roe vs Wade out of thin air.

Ok sure. These judges are special, not like those 1973 judges.

Yes, SCOTUS today didn’t make up a law complete with breakdown of regulations by trimester. Why is this all confusing to you? Interpreting the constitution isn’t making up legislation.

The SCOTUS today made up a law that gives absolute immunity to the president.

Totally bizarre reading of the opinion. Today, SCOTUS took away absolute immunity for various specified circumstances. Including an insurrection.

There was never absolute immunity for anyone, including the president. So conferring any immunity at all is a loss for the American people.

Anonymous wrote:As I posted in the other thread, if the theory holds, then Joe can take swift action and it can be against any foes in the House, Senate, SCOTUS, you name it because he would be above the law, right?

Part of me hopes Biden does something crazy just to show how crazy this ruling is. Because the ruling was obviously made with trump in mind, knowing that Biden is levelheaded and wouldn't do anything rash. But if he has impunity, why not do something just to show the court what a Pandora's box they have opened

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time for Joe to order the DOJ to drop all the charges against Hunter.

So that Trump's DoJ can file even more serious charges against Hunter that were left out come January.

Joe would pardon him before then, especially in light of this ruling.

January 21, 2025 - That January.

Anonymous wrote:Dems need to stop the hand-wringing and use the next few months to ensure that the Dems stay in power. Biden has immunity, too, now.

Biden doesnt necessarily have immunity because the Supreme Court decides.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time for Joe to order the DOJ to drop all the charges against Hunter.

So that Trump's DoJ can file even more serious charges against Hunter that were left out come January.

Joe would pardon him before then, especially in light of this ruling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden is just as protected by this as Trump.

No he isn’t. The courts (ultimately the Supreme Court) will decide if whatever he did is protected. And what do you think they’ll decide?

I think they - meaning the lower courts - judge the merits and decide on a case by case basis whether a president’s action is covered or not, but hopefully all this Dem initiated lawfare dies down and we don’t have to keep going to the judiciary for these battles. Dems need to win at the ballot box not try to put their opponents in jail. Especially when Hilary (campaign finance) and Biden (documents) are doing the same things.

Anonymous wrote:Time for Joe to order the DOJ to drop all the charges against Hunter.

So that Trump's DoJ can file even more serious charges against Hunter that were left out come January.

Dems need to stop the hand-wringing and use the next few months to ensure that the Dems stay in power. Biden has immunity, too, now.

Anonymous wrote:Time for Joe to order the DOJ to drop all the charges against Hunter.

He was already found guilty.

Anonymous wrote:Biden is just as protected by this as Trump.

No he isn’t. The courts (ultimately the Supreme Court) will decide if whatever he did is protected. And what do you think they’ll decide?

Time for Joe to order the DOJ to drop all the charges against Hunter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the constitution never said it forbids abortion restrictions in 1972. Judges made it up.

Judges make stuff up I guess.

Republican judges make stuff up to protect the powerful.

You disagree with their interpretation of the law. Eh, it happens.

The judges in 1973 literally made up Roe vs Wade out of thin air.

Ok sure. These judges are special, not like those 1973 judges.

Yes, SCOTUS today didn’t make up a law complete with breakdown of regulations by trimester. Why is this all confusing to you? Interpreting the constitution isn’t making up legislation.

The SCOTUS today made up a law that gives absolute immunity to the president.

Totally bizarre reading of the opinion. Today, SCOTUS took away absolute immunity for various specified circumstances. Including an insurrection.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the constitution never said it forbids abortion restrictions in 1972. Judges made it up.

Judges make stuff up I guess.

Fortunately we have a court that rectified that mistake.

A court with judges? Please.

A judge interprets the law. He doesn’t make it.

Not anymore. After Chevron, Judges will be making administrative rules. After today, judges will define what is and is not considered "official acts" of the president.

The simple solution to this is the executive Branch deciding not to enforce the court’s decision

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the constitution never said it forbids abortion restrictions in 1972. Judges made it up.

Judges make stuff up I guess.

Republican judges make stuff up to protect the powerful.

You disagree with their interpretation of the law. Eh, it happens.

The judges in 1973 literally made up Roe vs Wade out of thin air.

Ok sure. These judges are special, not like those 1973 judges.

Yes, SCOTUS today didn’t make up a law complete with breakdown of regulations by trimester. Why is this all confusing to you? Interpreting the constitution isn’t making up legislation.

The SCOTUS today made up a law that gives absolute immunity to the president.

Eventually different judges will have a different interpretation. Stinks that trump may be gone before we can get some better judges on SCOTUS. But everything about trump stinks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the constitution never said it forbids abortion restrictions in 1972. Judges made it up.

Judges make stuff up I guess.

Fortunately we have a court that rectified that mistake.

A court with judges? Please.

A judge interprets the law. He doesn’t make it.

Not anymore. After Chevron, Judges will be making administrative rules. After today, judges will define what is and is not considered "official acts" of the president.