|
Replies: 57
| visibility 3059
|
Orange Blooded [2801]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 3515
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Whichever SCOTUS judge votes to give immunity to former presidents
2
Jul 1, 2024, 10:00 AM
|
|
didn’t they basically commit treasonous lies during their Senate confirmation process?
I mean, how does the Federalist Society, who hyped these judges stand on this kind of blatant Unoriginalist interpretation of the constitution?
|
|
|
|
 |
Oculus Spirit [99111]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65615
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Twitter already calling for Biden to arrest Trump
1
Jul 1, 2024, 10:49 AM
|
|
As an "official act" of course. Or ban him from being President. I mean, why not?
Another stupid ruling that could backfire bigly. Reminds me of the "nuclear option" in Congress. One party votes to use it, when it benefits them, and then when things change, they get screwed when it's used to the benefit of the other party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48624]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30835
Joined: 11/15/99
|
On what charges?
Jul 1, 2024, 10:56 AM
|
|
As an "official act"?
Pretty sure that is not a crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32231]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37400
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I think the ruling makes sense and sounds like it is...
4
Jul 1, 2024, 11:22 AM
[ in reply to Twitter already calling for Biden to arrest Trump ] |
|
pretty much what most "experts" thought it would be.
Lower courts have to decide what is an official act and what isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12445]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5474
Joined: 9/12/04
|
Welp... IMO this ruling seems to codify through an official SCOTUS ruling
2
Jul 1, 2024, 11:39 AM
|
|
what has always previously been respected as a "norm" of Presidential power. Yet because of the "get Trump at any cost" mind virus that infects so many with near-sighted political expediency such SCOTUS rulings are going to be characterized as "radical" by those who hate Trump.
Thank goodness the majority of the Justices understood that this ruling is about ALL Presidents and not just Trump. If the SCOTUS had ruled any differently all future and past Presidents of either political ilk would be in danger of endless litigation by their bitter political opponents...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32231]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37400
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I don't agree with that 1st part at all...
3
Jul 1, 2024, 11:44 AM
|
|
and from what I know of the pending cases against him, I think there are PLENTY of points where lower courts may find he was not engaging in official duties related to what he's being charged with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13455]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6728
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: I don't agree with that 1st part at all...
1
Jul 1, 2024, 11:53 AM
|
|
Again, I'm not in a position to have an informed opinion, but I would agree calling the GA Secretary of State and saying find me X number of votes doesn't sound like an official act.
I don't think Trump is totally off the hook for all of the charges he faces.
I will read the official majority opinion and that of the dissent as it will be interesting.
It is pretty rich that Schumer is already trashing the SCOTUS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5175]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5176
Joined: 1/8/19
|
Re: I don't agree with that 1st part at all...
1
Jul 1, 2024, 12:59 PM
|
|
The left wants a conservative justice assassinated so bad they can't stand it. Time to gin up the kooks and see if they can convince one of them to do their dirty work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32231]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37400
Joined: 11/22/03
|
"The left"....the whole left wants to assassinate...
1
Jul 1, 2024, 3:54 PM
|
|
a SC Justice?
Do you even read your posts before you hit "Post Message"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7950]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 10390
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Previous questionable presidential official acts vs Trump / State of GA
Jul 2, 2024, 11:57 AM
[ in reply to Re: I don't agree with that 1st part at all... ] |
|
Some historical examples to compare with the Trump / GA election interference case.
LBJ had the CIA insert a spy into Barry Goldwater’s office to get advance copies of Goldwater’s speeches. IMO, there is not the slightest link between the official duties of a president and this act. It had nothing to do with election integrity, nor was there any suspicion that Goldwater was himself a spy that could be caught by previewing Goldwater’s political speeches.
IMO again, this would not be protected by the presumption of an official act as per presidential immunity / separation of powers protections. This type of act should be subjected to litigation for being potentially outside of protection via presidential immunity for official acts.
LBJ had the CIA wiretap Goldwater’s plane during the run up to the 1964 election. It is an enormous stretch to believe that LBJ had Goldwater’s plane wiretapped because he (LBJ) believed that Goldwater might be a spy, and that LBJ was protecting the integrity of the presidency by vigorously vetting Goldwater to make sure that Goldwater wasn’t a spy.
IMO, this stretch of reasoning that LBJ was protecting the office of the president would neither be definitively outside of official presidential acts nor definitively within the official acts of the presidency. This situation should be litigated to determine whether or not presidential immunity for official acts applied.
A.Lincoln, fearful that State of MD might vote to secede from the Union, had the State of MD legislators arrested; Lincoln’s objective was to preserve the Union.
IMO, this outrageous act would nevertheless fall within the presumption that Lincoln was engaged in an official presidential act. Was the jailing of the MD legislators un-Constitutional? Yes indeed. Nevertheless, Lincoln plausibly believed that he was acting in his official duties as president; therefore he should not be subjected to litigation.
JFK had the FBI wiretap the offices of selected congressman who were opposing JFK’s legislative priorities.
IMO, this act was outside the farthest reaches of official presidential acts; the legislative process automatically sheds light on what both sides of a legislative argument. Thus, JFK should have been subjected to litigation for actions that might reasonably have been outside the official acts of the office of the president.
Now, to Trump and GA. He called State of GA’s Secretary of State and asked Raffensperger to ‘find 11,000 votes.’ Trump believed, contrary to the opinions of some of his advisors, that the GA election count was wrong. (Recent events strongly indicate that Trump’s suspicions were valid. Remember the security video of Fulton County election workers bring out previously hidden boxes and boxes of ballots and feeding them into the voting machines AFTER election monitors were evacuated due to an alleged break of a water main? Turns out that actual votes cast in Fulton County exceeded the number of registered voters by ~ 100,000. We also learned later in that, despite protestations from Raffensperger, about 300 Trump votes had been lost and not counted.)
IMO, Trump was within the ‘perimeter’ of presidential acts by challenging State of GA to look for votes; the presumption that Trump was engaged entirely in using the power of the presidency for personal reasons is outright false. Millions of his supporters believed that THEY were defrauded of a fair election. Therefore, the Trump / State of GA election interference acts would plausibly fall within the protections of immunity for official presidential acts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [868]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 1189
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Re: Previous questionable presidential official acts vs Trump / State of GA
Jul 3, 2024, 7:57 AM
|
|
False, conspiracy theory BS. Go back to Russia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12445]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5474
Joined: 9/12/04
|
But what does the SCOTUS decision actually say??
3
Jul 1, 2024, 12:07 PM
[ in reply to I don't agree with that 1st part at all... ] |
|
Simply that a President has total immunity and is entitled to presumed immunity for official acts. A President is not immune for unofficial acts. Since our founding this has been the de facto accepted norm.
If Trump or some other President does something outside of this "norm" then let the chips fall where they may... But at least now the lower courts can't just buy whatever a partisan DOJ deems as a criminal without first proving it is outside the Presidential activities...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [868]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 1189
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Re: But what does the SCOTUS decision actually say??
Jul 1, 2024, 9:40 PM
|
|
What you don't seem to understand is that this particular court assumes an official act is anything that the president does, while saying "I'm the president." It goes against everything our founders stood for. Anybody who has taken an oath to this country and the Constitution should know better, as long as they have at least a moron's understanding of the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1670]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 2196
Joined: 1/2/20
|
Re: But what does the SCOTUS decision actually say??
1
Jul 2, 2024, 7:14 AM
|
|
An official constitutional act. People are acting like a president can assassinate a political opponent and not face consequences. You are an idiot if you believe that.
This is nothing new this has been status quo forever. Now the Supreme Court just confirmed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [868]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 1189
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Re: But what does the SCOTUS decision actually say??
Jul 2, 2024, 10:32 PM
|
|
No, you kiddos want to believe that, but it's false. Richard Nixon was afraid of prosecution for his coverup of the Watergate affair (all done as President), so Ford pardoned him. If everybody else in the chain of command can be prosecuted for unlawful actions, why can't the president? This decision goes against everything our founders stood for. Until now, every president knew he was not above the law. Even Joe Biden with all his age and such knows that. But SCOTUS and the orange traitor to everything American think they can establish the kingship that George Washington declined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20732]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11863
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Welp... IMO this ruling seems to codify through an official SCOTUS ruling
1
Jul 1, 2024, 4:40 PM
[ in reply to Welp... IMO this ruling seems to codify through an official SCOTUS ruling ] |
|
Joe Biden now has absolute power for at least the next six months and twenty days. Moreover, Donald and his cult followers campaign have been very clear what they intend to do upon taking power themselves.
I'm sure Joe's going to sit on his hands and play by the rules until that day. Even though the Supreme Court themselves just told him he didn't have to and there were in fact no rules as long as the prez does whatever he's doing all officially-like.
Me, I kind of see a problem brewing here myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14920
Joined: 11/2/15
|
So, Joe Biden defying SCOTUS twice and congress
2
Jul 1, 2024, 4:48 PM
|
|
with the tuition communism; is playing by the rules? LOL.
Not to mention there is a DOJ official in each DA’s office that has a case against Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20732]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11863
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: So, Joe Biden defying SCOTUS twice and congress
Jul 1, 2024, 5:02 PM
|
|
And that's absolute kidstuff compared to what he can now legally do now. Which is pretty much whatever the eff he wants.
This was a bad, bad idea. Joe Biden and the entire Dem party are now scared out of their minds because the rule of law has been struck down and the prez now apparently has free reign to do what he will. It's not going to take them long to realize they control the executive branch - which includes the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, and a whole bunch of other alphabet-soup agencies in addition to the US Armed Forces - and start thinking they need to take action to save themselves and their families because they're convinced Donald Trump and his minions are coming for them. Mostly because Donald Trump and his minions are going to be coming for them.
Good job, fellas. Backing the guys who hold the reigns of power into a corner is always a great idea. I don't know if you noticed, but the Dems are getting increasingly desperate at the exact moment SCOTUS just let the president completely off the leash.
So what do you think happens now? Anything good?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25780]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44148
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Almost everything in that post is bassackwards... That's really hard to do.***
1
Jul 1, 2024, 5:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14920
Joined: 11/2/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [868]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 1189
Joined: 10/19/21
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [868]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 1189
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Re: So, Joe Biden defying SCOTUS twice and congress
Jul 1, 2024, 9:56 PM
[ in reply to So, Joe Biden defying SCOTUS twice and congress ] |
|
That's just effing stupid. The DOJ does not have employees in Georgia or NY prosecutors' offices, unless there is a consent decree (and there isn't). The DOJ is a strictly Federal agency. Two of the prosecutions, so far, are in state court. The other potential ones in Arizona and Michigan have him as an unindicted co-conspirator in order to avoid the SCOTUS nonsense, knowing they can get him later.
The tax fraud case is potentially huge, one of the largest ever in the country's history. But the audit just ended and they might just wait him out in case he gets elected. Can he pardon himself for all tax crimes, past, present, and future?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7950]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 10390
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: So, Joe Biden defying SCOTUS twice and congress
Jul 2, 2024, 12:09 PM
|
|
State election process which involve candidates for national office are the business of both the states and the federal government.
The SCOTUS ruling is not about what ends up being constitutional from the legality of the final (in the cases of AZ, GA, and MI) electoral outcome.
The SCOTUS ‘immunity’ ruling is about whether or not a president’s actions as pertains to challenging the validity of a state’s electoral process / electoral results as pertains to candidates for federal office plausibly falls within the realm of a president’s official duties.
The presidential acts in question with regard to the specifics of Trump’s challenges are indeed plausible as being official acts. They don’t have to be definitively known by the president as being constitutional.
AZ, MI, and GA cases against Trump are on the rotisserie. They’ll be done soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [868]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 1189
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Re: So, Joe Biden defying SCOTUS twice and congress
Jul 2, 2024, 10:26 PM
|
|
Conspiracy with his private mafia to organize fake electors is in no way, shape, or form an official act. You traitorous idiots should just go ahead to move to Mother Russia. America is not the place for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1670]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 2196
Joined: 1/2/20
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13455]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6728
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: I think the ruling makes sense and sounds like it is...
1
Jul 1, 2024, 11:40 AM
[ in reply to I think the ruling makes sense and sounds like it is... ] |
|
I am not a legal scholar and in fact am completely incompetent regarding the law, but this would seem to me to be a reasonable decision.
Trump and future Presidents have to have some degree of immunity in order to function. The argument that no man is above the law doesn't work well as far as treating the President like the rest of us. The same is true of cops. There has to be some degree of immunity, but not blanket immunity. The President can't be looking over his/her shoulder for taking official actions.
The lower courts will have the burden of proof to determine what is an official act and what isn't.
No President can order the execution of a rival and expect that to be an "official act."
So no President will be given unlimited immunity to do any and everything he/she wishes.Trump's lawyers were making that case and that argument was shot down.
The mechanism of removal of a President still rests with the Congress although that is and should be a high bar to clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7205]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15821
Joined: 10/10/02
|
Re: I think the ruling makes sense and sounds like it is...
1
Jul 1, 2024, 1:03 PM
|
|
Exactly. The burden is on Congress to impeach and remove.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3754]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4360
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: I think the ruling makes sense and sounds like it is...
Jul 1, 2024, 4:58 PM
|
|
Which the cowards in the Senate should have done in early 2021 and this would all be far behind us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25780]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44148
Joined: 7/31/10
|
For what...?***
1
Jul 1, 2024, 5:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3754]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4360
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: For what...?***
Jul 1, 2024, 7:08 PM
|
|
Many things…not the least of which was simply sitting on his hands while his minions ransacked Congress. If that had happened in a more reasonable time before everything was so ‘us vs them’, he would have been asked/forced to resign before they even had to impeach him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7950]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 10390
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: For what...?***
Jul 2, 2024, 12:22 PM
|
|
The matter at hand is for a past president that left office before a strong enough case to impeach him (I.e., Trump) and then convict him.
The presidential immunity to include out-of-office presidents question had never been pursued. SCOTUS had to provide details of what The Constitution had laid out in general terms with regard to presidential immunity.
Contrary to what America’s leftist media and Constitution-hating TDS’ers are saying, this ruling is NOT just about Trump. It is for all future presidents as well.
For those who want to strip the president of presumed ‘official acts’ immunity, they should start a campaign to communicate with their congressmen & senators to work towards a new Constitutional Amendment to change the presidential immunity ruling.
Other than that, just keep on bashing SCOTUS for confirming The Constitution’s separation of powers provisions. One day you’ll succeed in destroying American democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [868]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 1189
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Re: For what...?***
Jul 3, 2024, 7:53 AM
|
|
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about presidential immunity. There’s not even an implication. It’s obviously not there, because it was never even considered. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay never considered the president to be above the law. What you’ve seen in your sad little life is a continuous increase in executive power because Congress has deferred more and more of its authority.
The delusions from this uneducated and ignorant fascist subculture are bizarre. “Crooked Clarence Thomas says it, so it must ge in the Constitution.” Read the document, you worthless morons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4158]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 8416
Joined: 12/9/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7950]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 10390
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: I think the ruling makes sense and sounds like it is...
Jul 2, 2024, 12:25 PM
|
|
Nope. The SCOTUS ruling pertains to Article 2 of The Constitution.
Only the president is granted special powers by Article 2.
VP’s, Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Judges, Taylor Swift … not the same status nor the same protections and powers as the president.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5175]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5176
Joined: 1/8/19
|
Re: I think the ruling makes sense and sounds like it is...
1
Jul 2, 2024, 12:04 PM
[ in reply to Re: I think the ruling makes sense and sounds like it is... ] |
|
This gives some insight into what the left was planning once Trump got elected. They were gonna sue him at every turn no matter what. Now that strategy has been nullified much to their chagrin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12505]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8552
Joined: 10/18/16
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18118]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30267
Joined: 9/9/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1167]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2061
Joined: 12/9/98
|
Re: True "conservatives" should blast the ruling.***
1
Jul 1, 2024, 4:04 PM
|
|
Said by a person who is not a conservative
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18118]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30267
Joined: 9/9/06
|
That's true. Not sure we have any on this board anymore.***
Jul 1, 2024, 8:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20732]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11863
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Twitter already calling for Biden to arrest Trump
Jul 1, 2024, 4:33 PM
[ in reply to Twitter already calling for Biden to arrest Trump ] |
|
And it was the absolute height of stupid to give that power to freaking Biden with at least six months and twenty days left on his clock in which he has absolute power. Especially since Donald and his derpy minions have been crowing at the top of their lungs the havoc and retribution they're planning upon taking office.
I have no words. And they certainly didn't think things through.
Basically, the supreme arbiters of the rule of law in the USA...just struck down the rule of law in the USA.
Uhm...okay. This isn't going to turn out well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3754]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4360
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: Twitter already calling for Biden to arrest Trump
Jul 1, 2024, 4:37 PM
|
|
I mean…MAGA (including those on here) are saying that the election is rigged and we can’t trust voting machines, etc. Maybe Biden should postpone the election indefinitely until such time that we can ALL agree that a safe and fair election can be held.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20732]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11863
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Twitter already calling for Biden to arrest Trump
Jul 1, 2024, 4:44 PM
|
|
He can indeed now do that.
Officially.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25780]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44148
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Don't be so obtuse... Is BSing your new gig...? Even if I didn't agree, at least
1
Jul 1, 2024, 5:43 PM
|
|
most of your previous posts had a modicum of logic.
So Biden should do some more AT-tribution before T-Rump does some RE-tribution? Go fetal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14920
Joined: 11/2/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3754]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4360
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: Can you please list the retributions?***
Jul 1, 2024, 4:57 PM
|
|
Project 2025 for starters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14920
Joined: 11/2/15
|
That isnt Trumps baby.***
Jul 1, 2024, 6:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3754]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4360
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: That isnt Trumps baby.***
Jul 1, 2024, 7:01 PM
|
|
It won’t matter…I don’t think he will do anything to stop it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7950]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 10390
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Twitter already calling for Biden to arrest Trump
Jul 2, 2024, 12:28 PM
[ in reply to Re: Twitter already calling for Biden to arrest Trump ] |
|
Biden can be brought to Justice via the impeachment process. Unfortunately, the Uniparty (both the Democrat and RINO wings) like how Biden’s handlers enrich and empower them.
Vote down ballot to fix things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [868]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 1189
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Re: Twitter already calling for Biden to arrest Trump
Jul 1, 2024, 9:42 PM
[ in reply to Twitter already calling for Biden to arrest Trump ] |
|
He could have him arrested as a threat to democracy. And as a threat to women and girls everywhere.
The people doing the arresting are still subject to prosecution, just as any soldier is subject to prosecution for following unlawful orders (at least in theory, but then certain murderous trash can still be pardoned by presidents like Trump)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14920
Joined: 11/2/15
|
^screams at clouds***
1
Jul 1, 2024, 11:18 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1006]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/9/21
|
Re: Whichever SCOTUS judge votes to give immunity to former presidents
Jul 1, 2024, 11:37 AM
|
|
“The President is now a king above the law’
Sotomayor
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7950]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 10390
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Whichever SCOTUS judge votes to give immunity to former presidents
Jul 2, 2024, 12:29 PM
|
|
I look forward to the day when Sotomayor becomes fully literate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13455]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6728
Joined: 12/24/15
|
I seriously doubt Chuck Schumer or Hakeem Jeffries
1
Jul 1, 2024, 12:51 PM
|
|
have read the nearly 100 page ruling, but immediately they are trashing the SCOTUS.
Biden said it was dangerous of Trump to question the decision of a Manhattan Court recently.
Is it not more dangerous for the Senate Majority Leader and the leader of the Dems in the House to come out scorched earth against the third and equal branch of government within such a short time after this ruling, when it is extremely doubtful they read the full decision?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [868]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 1189
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Re: I seriously doubt Chuck Schumer or Hakeem Jeffries
Jul 1, 2024, 9:48 PM
|
|
Read it. It's not as long as you think. The ruling is 43 pages with the typical huge margins.
Then some concurrences, including one from the king of bribery, Clarence Thomas.Pages 68-119 of the pdf are dissents from the honest justices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43045]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38915
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Treasonous? No.
Jul 1, 2024, 12:58 PM
|
|
Liars? Yes.
Won’t matter because if fat orange fascist is elected again, treason will be extended to people like you and me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5175]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5176
Joined: 1/8/19
|
Re: Whichever SCOTUS judge votes to give immunity to former presidents
1
Jul 1, 2024, 6:17 PM
|
|
And of course left wing scum are already fantasizing everywhere about Biden murdering Trump and all of his supporters since they are so stupid they think that this ruling somehow legalized the mass murder of your political enemies. Never doubt leftists when they tell you who they really are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [868]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 1189
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Re: Whichever SCOTUS judge votes to give immunity to former presidents
1
Jul 1, 2024, 10:00 PM
|
|
Shouldn't project your murderous urges onto everyone else. Your so-called "leftist" enemies are just smarter and better than you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20732]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11863
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Whichever SCOTUS judge votes to give immunity to former presidents
Jul 2, 2024, 6:27 AM
|
|
I don't even argue with the troglodyte. Anybody who thinks I'm any kind of leftist is just far too stupid to waste a second of my day on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 57
| visibility 3059
|
|
|
50
