|
Replies: 53
| visibility 4463
|
CU Guru [1556]
TigerPulse: 90%
30
|
SCOTUS
3
Jul 1, 2024, 5:21 PM
|
|
100% embarrassment
Founding fathers are pissed off.
USA headed to being third world dictatorship.
|
|
|
|
 |
Clemson Icon [27043]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 45918
Joined: 2010
|
Go sit in a hot tub... It'll get better.***
3
Jul 1, 2024, 5:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [21225]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 12247
Joined: 2002
|
Re: Go sit in a hot tub... It'll get better.***
1
Jul 1, 2024, 7:44 PM
|
|
It will not be your "side" in charge.
The Dems are panicking, and they are currently in office. They will not hand the keys to the kingdom back over to Donald, ever. Especially now that the president can, in his official capacity, apparently do whatever the eff he wants.
This was an insane decision, and very possibly the dumbest and most shortsighted one I've ever seen or even imagined from the Supreme Court. And after that performance a few days back, I'm very much on board with the idea Joe is somebody's sock puppet.
Now whoever's got his hand up Joe's rectum and is making him flap his mouth on command has pretty much near-absolute power. If you don't think they're not going to start abusing it almost instantly you trust politicians and especially their power-clutching little minions a whole lot more than I do...and you're not nearly the conspiracy theorist you claim to be.
I don't even know how this goes now, but I can feel in my bones it's going to be bad. You should too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1314]
TigerPulse: 92%
28
|
Re: Go sit in a hot tub... It'll get better.***
1
Jul 1, 2024, 8:33 PM
|
|
First, that is not what the decision means. It's a good scare tactic though.
Second, of course the dems won't hand over the keys over. That's been obvious since the 2016 election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7522]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 16112
Joined: 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13103]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 11591
Joined: 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7522]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 16112
Joined: 2002
|
Re: They've already been abusing it.
1
Jul 2, 2024, 8:52 AM
|
|
That's what no one ever seems to understand. When you use the nuclear option for your short term goals, the other side is going to do the same thing or worse when they take power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [97]
TigerPulse: 93%
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15542]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 16530
Joined: 2015
|
Solidorange89
Jul 1, 2024, 5:31 PM
|
|
100% embarrassment.
Founding father and mother wishes they’d aborted.
America worse off cause he’s here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [97]
TigerPulse: 93%
10
|
Re: Solidorange89
Jul 2, 2024, 8:50 AM
|
|
Nice, terrible politics and person.
Let us know how you parent and see if you can hit the trifecta
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [36005]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 42597
Joined: 2001
|
Tell me you dont know anything about the ruling without telling me
3
Jul 1, 2024, 7:11 PM
|
|
you dont know anything about the ruling
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6560]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
Posts: 11230
Joined: 2003
|
Re: Tell me you dont know anything about the ruling without telling me
Jul 2, 2024, 12:01 AM
|
|
Tell me you dont know anything about the ruling without telling me
Jul 15, 2024, 9:48 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen (should either exist here), something seems eerily foreboding about the above response to the OP.
Not subject-verb agreement...
Not some stylized something another...
But something still... something Crashingly portentous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14839]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
I haven't read the opinion
3
Jul 1, 2024, 7:45 PM
|
|
I take it that you have read it in its entirety?
So do you support a President being taken to court over an official act?
If so, one could make the case that the relatives of people killed by illegal aliens could potentially sue Biden as the case could be made that his actions have allowed people in that have committed these acts who otherwise might not have come into our country.
Obama could be sued by the relatives of the 3 Americans killed by a drone strike with apparently only the fourth individual being explicitly targeted.
Without immunity for official acts no President could act without the fear of being sued.
For unofficial acts, the President faces the same potential consequences as any of us.
Read what Barrett said.
Everyone needs to take a deep breath.
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/01/trump-immunity-supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-opinion
If Dems are really serious that Trump now can get away with ordering Seal Team 6 to kill a political opponent and since many Dems think Trump is an existential threat to democracy, then it would seem Biden has a golden ticket to off Trump at the next debate and should do so?
Message was edited by: rons1®
Message was edited by: rons1®
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8072]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 10411
Joined: 2013
|
Maybe Presidents should be worried about breaking the law.
Jul 1, 2024, 8:23 PM
|
|
Maybe that's just me who thinks that. Please arrest Obama for killing US citizens, please arrest Biden for his war crimes. If you think breaking laws is somehow necessary for a US President to be effective, that's a whole nother problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2661]
TigerPulse: 93%
33
|
Re: I haven't read the opinion
1
Jul 1, 2024, 8:29 PM
[ in reply to I haven't read the opinion ] |
|
>>If Dems are really serious that Trump now can get away with ordering Seal Team 6 to kill a political opponent and since many Dems think Trump is an existential threat to democracy, then it would seem Biden has a golden ticket to off Trump at the next debate and should do so?
You said it better than I could. This is the first SCOTUS ruling that has ever sent an absolute chill down my spine. We have now opened the door to pure murder of political opponents, and political dictatorship. All a POTUS has to do is cloak his action in the "official duties" space, and then anything goes with no repercussions. Pandora's Box has been opened here.
This ruling has put Presidents above the rule of law.
This ruling should scare the Hell out of everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1314]
TigerPulse: 92%
28
|
LOL HAHA
2
Jul 1, 2024, 9:13 PM
|
|
this is gold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2661]
TigerPulse: 93%
33
|
"Gold" in the sense that I'm absolutely right....
1
Jul 1, 2024, 9:32 PM
|
|
This is not a joke. Our SCOTUS has opened the door to a dictatorship in a way I never thought possible.
And this SCOTUS is not conservative. They're insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1314]
TigerPulse: 92%
28
|
I know... That's what makes it so funny***
1
Jul 1, 2024, 9:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2661]
TigerPulse: 93%
33
|
So you agree with me, but you think it's funny?....
Jul 1, 2024, 9:54 PM
|
|
What's funny about dictatorship?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1314]
TigerPulse: 92%
28
|
Funny you say it's not a joke.
1
Jul 1, 2024, 10:03 PM
|
|
It's ####### hilarious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2661]
TigerPulse: 93%
33
|
So, you're ok with dictatorship. Got it, Fascist.***
Jul 2, 2024, 10:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1314]
TigerPulse: 92%
28
|
I'm ok with you being dumb, and me laughing at you.***
1
Jul 2, 2024, 2:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [97]
TigerPulse: 93%
10
|
Re: I haven't read the opinion
Jul 2, 2024, 8:53 AM
[ in reply to I haven't read the opinion ] |
|
Define “official act”.
The argument would come down to whether the court thinks it was an official act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7522]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 16112
Joined: 2002
|
Re: I haven't read the opinion
1
Jul 2, 2024, 8:54 AM
[ in reply to I haven't read the opinion ] |
|
The left is in full chicken little mode since the debate. It will get worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1332]
TigerPulse: 92%
28
|
Re: I haven't read the opinion
Jul 2, 2024, 8:40 PM
[ in reply to I haven't read the opinion ] |
|
I take it that you have read it in its entirety? So do you support a President being taken to court over an official act? If so, one could make the case that the relatives of people killed by illegal aliens could potentially sue Biden as the case could be made that his actions have allowed people in that have committed these acts who otherwise might not have come into our country. Obama could be sued by the relatives of the 3 Americans killed by a drone strike with apparently only the fourth individual being explicitly targeted. Without immunity for official acts no President could act without the fear of being sued. For unofficial acts, the President faces the same potential consequences as any of us. Read what Barrett said. Everyone needs to take a deep breath. https://www.axios.com/2024/07/01/trump-immunity-supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-opinionIf Dems are really serious that Trump now can get away with ordering Seal Team 6 to kill a political opponent and since many Dems think Trump is an existential threat to democracy, then it would seem Biden has a golden ticket to off Trump at the next debate and should do so? Message was edited by: rons1® Message was edited by: rons1®
Excellent comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1556]
TigerPulse: 90%
30
|
Re: SCOTUS
1
Jul 1, 2024, 8:35 PM
|
|
In the history of the United States, no president has needed immunity.
The only reason this became a case was because Trump decided to send a violent mob to the US capital to attack law enforcement and cancel half of Americans’ votes and let him remain in office.
And by the way while they were there they stated their intent to kill the vice president and speaker of the house.
Scumbags.
There is no reason to have immunity from charges related to these actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1314]
TigerPulse: 92%
28
|
meltdown much?***
2
Jul 1, 2024, 8:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27043]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 45918
Joined: 2010
|
Obviously, too long in the hot tub...***
Jul 2, 2024, 4:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1556]
TigerPulse: 90%
30
|
Re: SCOTUS
Jul 1, 2024, 8:44 PM
|
|
Supporters of today’s SCOTUS decision provide a laundry list of the potential charges a president could face in the event POTUS did not have immunity.
Shouldn't the American people decide whether a president is guilty of charges?
With today’s decision SCOTUS declares POTUS immune, long before being aware of the actions or the charges. Show me one similar decision in US case law.
Let’s provide all US politicians with immunity for all official acts. Why not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15431]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
|
Re: SCOTUS
Jul 1, 2024, 8:45 PM
|
|
If you don't want presidential immunity for ANYTHING (including official acts), why or why not would the presidents of these 3 events not be charged?
Obama for ordering the killing of al-Qaida leader Bin Laden?
Trump for ordering the killing of Iranian General Soleimani?
Biden for ordering the killing of al-Qaida leader al-Zawahri?
Where were the arrests and trials?
At least G.W. Bush made sure Saddam Husseim was captured, tried, convicted and then executed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8072]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 10411
Joined: 2013
|
Shirley, you can't be serious.
Jul 1, 2024, 9:26 PM
|
|
What exactly do you think they would be tried for? Spoilers: targeted killings fall under international law. It's basically the Geneva Convention, Hague Convention, and a bunch of treaties between the US and applicable Countries. You'd have better luck finding cases that don't involve military personnel and situations where they can't be taken alive without risk of life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15431]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
|
Re: Shirley, you can't be serious.
Jul 1, 2024, 9:58 PM
|
|
They are immune. That's my point!
The Hague Convention IV's Regulations annexed to it prohibit the treacherous killing or wounding of individuals belonging to a hostile nation or army. However, there is no multilateral treaty that provides a legal framework for targeted killings, and international law doesn't define what constitutes a targeted killing. As a result, the legality of targeted killings may be based on international custom.
Article 37 of the 1977 Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions defines assassination as "perfidy" and prohibits killing, injuring, or capturing an adversary by using this tactic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7522]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 16112
Joined: 2002
|
Re: Shirley, you can't be serious.
1
Jul 2, 2024, 7:50 AM
[ in reply to Shirley, you can't be serious. ] |
|
I mean Obama droned an American citizen so....
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8072]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 10411
Joined: 2013
|
So arrest him for it. He should not be immune.***
Jul 2, 2024, 9:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7522]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 16112
Joined: 2002
|
Re: So arrest him for it. He should not be immune.***
1
Jul 2, 2024, 9:35 AM
|
|
Would have been the responsibility of the Congress. Which it still is.. The whole checks and balances thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8072]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 10411
Joined: 2013
|
What on Earth are you talking about?
Jul 2, 2024, 10:49 AM
|
|
Congress didn't arrest him (does Congress arrest people?) so nobody else can. You can tell it's just the dumbest ####### thing ever thought because when it happened, when Obama killed al-Awlaki, his OLC came out with a legal justification for it. Why would they go through all the trouble of debating the legality of it, when they could have just said, "#### it, official act of a President, we're immune suckers"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1556]
TigerPulse: 90%
30
|
Re: SCOTUS
Jul 1, 2024, 9:58 PM
[ in reply to Re: SCOTUS ] |
|
Saddis - you are making stuff up with a bunch of what if scenarios. Nobody charged Obama with that crime. Nobody charged Trump with that crime. Nobody was going to charge any president with any crime until Donald Trump sent a violent mob to the US capital to fight with US law enforcement. Nobody in the US ever thought about the president needing immunity until Trump. Biden doesn’t need immunity he doesn’t want immunity no prior presidents, needed or want immunity.
Trump has been convicted of over 30 felonies. One of his wives accused him of rape. He’s been found guilty of sexual assault. He’s been found guilty of financial fraud. He’s currently facing other charges.
Trump needs immunity.
The president of the United States does not need immunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1314]
TigerPulse: 92%
28
|
Not single thing in your post were charges
Jul 1, 2024, 10:16 PM
|
|
in the case Trump claimed immunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15431]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
|
Re: SCOTUS
Jul 1, 2024, 10:37 PM
[ in reply to Re: SCOTUS ] |
|
see above
Biden will need immunity in a few months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35477]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 34350
Joined: 1999
|
Haven't read it yet, but it doesn't sound crazy.***
1
Jul 1, 2024, 9:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7522]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 16112
Joined: 2002
|
It isn't.. Just a bunch of hand wringing.
Jul 2, 2024, 7:53 AM
|
|
They sent it back down for lower court judges to decide what is or is not and "official act".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6162]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Re: SCOTUS
6
6
Jul 1, 2024, 9:29 PM
|
|
All this feigned outrage on the left is what one should expect from a bunch of people eager to undermine the legitimacy of the SC. This decision isn't particularly surprising or controversial among anyone other than the kook left who want carte blanche to go after their political opponents every POTUS in our lifetime would be subject to criminal charges if this decision didn't include the official duties exception and the court left it to the lower courts to decide what exactly that may be, which is about as far from "let's murder our political opponents since the SC says we can now do whatever we want" as you can get. Keep crying morons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13821]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
|
Too many on this board need to turn the echo chamber machines off
6
6
Jul 1, 2024, 11:17 PM
|
|
and come back to reality. The SCOTUS has not provided the POTUS anything that wasn't previously observed since our founding. The biggest difference between the past norm and today is that the SCOTUS has now codified a Presidential norm because partisan Politico's forced it into the courts due to their use of lawfare against a former President.
This gaslighting that a President can murder anyone in the USA and is automatically immune to that crime is simply ludicrous. Committing murder and other actions of it's ilk are the very definition of an unofficial act.
Time to remember that total immunity from prosecution already exists for a class of person's in the USA and yet we rarely observe an abuse of that immunity from them. Top Level Foreign diplomats have total immunity from prosecution in the USA - even more immunity than what the SCOTUS just ruled exists in the Presidency. Top Level Foreign diplomats are completely immune from all criminal and civil prosecution (even in cases of murder) so long as their parent country does not waive this immunity for their diplomat. In the case of top level foreign ambassadors in the USA there is no delineation between "official" or "unofficial" acts which we have with our President - Top Level Ambassadors just have total immunity.
So does foreign diplomatic immunity mean that ambassadors will use that immunity as a free license to act criminally in the USA?? Of course not... and neither will the President of the USA.
Time for folks to turn down the volume on the "OMG - the SCOTUS said the President can now get away with doing anything" panic mongers. First of all that isn't anywhere near true but also because we still have a Governing system of checks and balances that ensure no one entity is all powerful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Legend [144932]
TigerPulse: 100%
67
Posts: 65952
Joined: 2000
|
"lawfare against a former President"
Jul 1, 2024, 11:48 PM
|
|
would imply that he was President in 2015 when he committed the crimes he was convicted of. Which he wasn't. Unless the argument is that he's immune because he subsequently became President, which I would assume you're not arguing. Or are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14839]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
Re: "lawfare against a former President"
2
Jul 2, 2024, 7:25 AM
|
|
The Bragg case was lawfare. Trump was guilty of a misdemeanor in which the statute of limitations had passed. Bragg as a Manhattan DA who ran on a "get Trump" banner then decided to pursue federal elections violations which the DOJ itself refused to do so.
In so doing, the statute of limitations went away and voila 34 felony charges appeared.
I mean it's every day that the third ranking DOJ member decides to go slumming and help out a DA pursue a case.
Regardless of the merits of the Georgia case, would you not admit that having Nathan Wade meet with WH officials under Biden smells just a little?
Then we have the various Dems trying to take Trump off the ballot for insurrection, which was shot down 9-0 by the SCOTUS.
Trump is an amoral man. He definitely fanned the flames of the rioters with some of his rhetoric, but if the Dems were serious they should have charged him with insurrection. Why didn't they? It was because it would be difficult to prove.
I think Trump's actions re: taking classified documents were much more egregious than Biden, but both men would be prosecuted and most likely jailed if they were not who they are.
I am not disputing that Trump may be found guilty for some of his actions. He may, but it's disingenuous in my opinion to act as if there has not been a concerted attempt to "get Trump."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15431]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
|
Re: "lawfare against a former President"
Jul 2, 2024, 8:59 AM
[ in reply to "lawfare against a former President" ] |
|
The only reason Trump was just convicted is because Governor Cuomo signed an Executive Order for the state of NY that extended statute of limitations during COVID. Without that, Trump could have never been charged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [21225]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 12247
Joined: 2002
|
Re: Too many on this board need to turn the echo chamber machines off
1
Jul 2, 2024, 9:20 AM
[ in reply to Too many on this board need to turn the echo chamber machines off ] |
|
So would you please show me the people remaining in the GOP who will so much as squeak in Donald's direction no matter what he does?
Show me some folks who haven't bent the knee or been purged, and I'd be happy to listen further about this intact system of checks and balances we have in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13821]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
|
OK Q - if you believe this ruling has given the President carte blanche to do
1
Jul 2, 2024, 10:16 AM
|
|
whatever criminal act he wants - then why doesn't President Biden just order Donald Trump to be executed by SEAL team 6 or the CIA tomorrow?? Better yet - just order Trump's Secret Service detail to put a piece of lead in his head since they have unfettered access to him. Surely the action could be justified - after all the Democrats have been making the case that Donald Trump is a "clear and present danger" to democracy and our Republic for years now. Many of the the leftist pundits have been dreaming of a dead Trump for years so why not make their dreams a reality??
We both know President Biden won't do this. Besides the morality issues of such an action, President Biden will take no such action because he and everyone in the DOJ clearly understand that the SCOTUS did not give the Presidency immunity for such actions. Furthermore - do you think Congress or the American people would stand for such an action??
So can we come back from the "crazy" and back to the reality that not everyone in the GOP, military, and Government at large are mindless drones with no morality or discernment from what is right and wrong, legal and illegal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1556]
TigerPulse: 90%
30
|
Re: OK Q - if you believe this ruling has given the President carte blanche to do
Jul 2, 2024, 3:39 PM
|
|
You are on target. Biden now has full immunity for any official act. He could launch a January 6 style “peaceful protest” at Mara Largo.
He could take out the six conservative justices. If it is an official act, it’s fair game.
There is no need to have the judicial branch decide whether POTUS is innocent or guilty in an action, we simply need to determine if it is official or not. If it is an official act, fair game, go for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27043]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 45918
Joined: 2010
|
It would be an official ILLEGAL act...***
Jul 2, 2024, 4:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1314]
TigerPulse: 92%
28
|
Re: It would be an official ILLEGAL act...***
2
Jul 2, 2024, 4:54 PM
|
|
SolidOrange89 doesn't know his ### from his elbow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1556]
TigerPulse: 90%
30
|
Re: It would be an official ILLEGAL act...***
Jul 2, 2024, 8:03 PM
|
|
It would be an official illegal act for which he would have immunity, sort of like what trumps lawyers are proposing as an appeal to the hush money conviction. They have already filed an appeal saying that when Fat Don paid stormy Daniel’s the #### star he was doing so as an official act.
Seriously, you can’t make this up.
Trump and his lawyers are scum bags.
Funny thing is 61.4247% of Americans have known this for decades. Just the 38% that are clueless gullible Trumpers haven’t figured out yet that he’s a narcissist dirtbag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5109]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
What happened?
Jul 2, 2024, 8:11 AM
|
|
Up until last week, all I heard was the infallibility of couple 3rd rate show courts in NY and their sham judges
Now you get a ruling you don't like and you cry like a little baby
Also - and I say this to both sides - read the whole opinion. The majority opinion, the concerning opinion from Thomas, the partially concurring opinion from Barrett, and the dissenting opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7522]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 16112
Joined: 2002
|
Re: What happened?
Jul 2, 2024, 9:00 AM
|
|
They won't read it, they'll just repeat what whichever talking head that they agree withs opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 53
| visibility 4463
|
|
|
50
