The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[hog88]

I inferred that you believed that things should be decided on the local level because smaller governments = fewer voters = more weight to individual votes and that there should be suffrage tests to reduce the number of votes to make votes count more.

Then you are pretty close to my beliefs.

 

[lawgator1]

I inferred that you believed that things should be decided on the local level because smaller governments = fewer voters = more weight to individual votes and that there should be suffrage tests to reduce the number of votes to make votes count more.

The votes of individuals for POTUS are not equal now, as is.

 

[hog88]

Go ahead and define "official acts of the President" for me, Gramps.

Assassination of US citizens isn't one of them.

 

[just bob]

 

[LSU-SIU]

That seems to sum it up, this country is something else.

 

[MontyPython]

Assassination of US citizens isn't one of them.

Heh. Oh, yeah?

Anwar al-Awlaki begs to differ. Well, he would if he weren't assassinated by order of Obama.

 

[Sea Ray]

They are meaningful. But the party choosing to set the result aside for good cause is hardly a coup.

What if information came to light that Trump in fact was on Putin's payroll? I mean, irrefutable evidence of it. Would the GOP be forced to nominate him at the upcoming convention? No, of course not.

If in this case the Dem party decides that Biden is not competent to be POTUS for the next four year,s that his decline is too imminent and substantial, they ought to be able to set aside the primary results, too.


Neither would be a good look. But as is, it seems to me that Biden has next to no chance to win and that it his own ego standing in the way. Reminds me a bit of RBG hanging on for too long. The old guard -- across the board (see e.g. McConnell) have to learn to step aside when the stepping is good.

Poor analogy. Biden didn't just all of a sudden decline cognitively. He didn't just all of a sudden get old. These have been questions about him for many years. He should have announced two yrs ago that he wouldn't run again. The party should have opened up the primary to allow challengers. So now because those things didn't happen, now we're looking at a decidedly undemocratic nomination process. This is political malpractice

 

[lawgator1]

The Court's definition of "official act" seems as much tied to who the President is communicating with as much as the substance of the communication.

If POTUS authorizes a military strike to US commanders and that results in the death of an American citizen, that would likely be treated differently than if he said aloud in an interview that he wished the American were dead, and some citizen took it upon himself to grant the wish.

 

[lawgator1]

Poor analogy. Biden didn't just all of a sudden decline cognitively. He didn't just all of a sudden get old. These have been questions about him for many years. He should have announced two yrs ago that he wouldn't run again. The party should have opened up the primary to allow challengers. So now because those things didn't happen, now we're looking at a decidedly undemocratic nomination process. This is political malpractice

Those may well be legitimate and accurate criticisms but the Dem party is not "stuck" with Biden just because they did not act sooner. You have been saying for some time that Biden simply cannot do the job. If Biden dies tomorrow, are the Dems duty-bound to make him their nominee? No.

And we are not, now.

And in fact it may be some kind of petition that gets this done and over with.

 

[LSU-SIU]

The Court's definition of "official act" seems as much tied to who the President is communicating with as much as the substance of the communication.

If POTUS authorizes a military strike to US commanders and that results in the death of an American citizen, that would likely be treated differently than if he said aloud in an interview that he wished the American were dead, and some citizen took it upon himself to grant the wish.

It would taken differently if they didn't target the Americans for murder.

 

[MontyPython]

The Court's definition of "official act" seems as much tied to who the President is communicating with as much as the substance of the communication.

If POTUS authorizes a military strike to US commanders and that results in the death of an American citizen, that would likely be treated differently than if he said aloud in an interview that he wished the American were dead, and some citizen took it upon himself to grant the wish.

Sotomayor is spot on in her angry dissent.

Welcome to the new United States where the President is above the law.

Surprised our resident libertarians aren't pissed. Not sure they're really understanding what's happened here.

SMH

 

[LSU-SIU]

Those may well be legitimate and accurate criticisms but the Dem party is not "stuck" with Biden just because they did not act sooner. You have been saying for some time that Biden simply cannot do the job. If Biden dies tomorrow, are the Dems duty-bound to make him their nominee? No.

And we are not, now.

And in fact it may be some kind of petition that gets this done and over with.

No, that is a conspiracy to defraud. None of this is new, what is new is the poll results. I would say all of this was planned, I can't say its a good plan at this point.

 

[evillawyer]

Kind of sums up how absurd this scotus is

 

[KptVFL]

They are meaningful. But the party choosing to set the result aside for good cause is hardly a coup.

What if information came to light that Trump in fact was on Putin's payroll? I mean, irrefutable evidence of it. Would the GOP be forced to nominate him at the upcoming convention? No, of course not.

If in this case the Dem party decides that Biden is not competent to be POTUS for the next four year,s that his decline is too imminent and substantial, they ought to be able to set aside the primary results, too.


Neither would be a good look. But as is, it seems to me that Biden has next to no chance to win and that it his own ego standing in the way. Reminds me a bit of RBG hanging on for too long. The old guard -- across the board (see e.g. McConnell) have to learn to step aside when the stepping is good.

I get what you are saying. Very slippery slope my friend!

 

[LSU-SIU]

Kind of sums up how absurd this scotus is

You're a moron if you think that is what was said. Biden isn't going to be criminally prosecuted for attempting to cancel student loans. Obama certainly should be criminally prosecuted for murdering Americans. (but that is one that people/courts until now tried to avoid)

 

[NorthDallas40]

Kind of sums up how absurd this scotus is

No. He’s immune from prosecution for committing both bone headed acts. But both acts are still bone headed.

 

[Sea Ray]

Those may well be legitimate and accurate criticisms but the Dem party is not "stuck" with Biden just because they did not act sooner. You have been saying for some time that Biden simply cannot do the job. If Biden dies tomorrow, are the Dems duty-bound to make him their nominee? No.

And we are not, now.

And in fact it may be some kind of petition that gets this done and over with.

Conservatives have been warning about Biden's cognitive skills for some time now. It looks like they were not conspiracy theorists. They were dead on.

This is where the Dems are stuck: they've made a political issue out of "democracy". If they pick a candidate sans a vote of the people, they lose the high ground on that issue

 

[RockyTop85]

Then you are pretty close to my beliefs.

I thought I was close enough that the question was viable, but it’s not that big of a deal, I was just curious.

 

[hog88]

The Court's definition of "official act" seems as much tied to who the President is communicating with as much as the substance of the communication.

If POTUS authorizes a military strike to US commanders and that results in the death of an American citizen, that would likely be treated differently than if he said aloud in an interview that he wished the American were dead, and some citizen took it upon himself to grant the wish.

I would find it hard to believe that any court would classify the assassination of a political opponent an "official act".

 

[NorthDallas40]

I would find it hard to believe that any court would classify the assassination of a political opponent an "official act".

Well it’s absolutely not a lawful order if whatever POTUS was dumb enough to issue it and in fact didn’t get prosecuted

 

[RockyTop85]

No. He’s immune from prosecution for committing both bone headed acts. But both acts are still bone headed.

Think 12 Dems would vote to impeach him if he nuked mar-a-lago?*

* - assuming they didn’t **** it up and hit it while Trump was in Iowa or something.

 

[hog88]

Well it’s absolutely not a lawful order if whatever POTUS was dumb enough to issue it and in fact didn’t get prosecuted

The way I see this ruling is that courts and possibly even congress are going to have to decide what constitutes and official act.

 

[MontyPython]

I would find it hard to believe that any court would classify the assassination of a political opponent an "official act".

A President could declare any American - *ANY* American - a domestic terrorist.

Once that declaration is made, the President isn't "assassinating" anyone. Maybe said domestic terrorist is taken alive. Maybe not.

It's all in the wash. President's action was "an official act". How the terrorist is brought to justice makes no difference.

As Sotomayor rightfully expressed, this is a ****ing cluster****. We've literally gone back to embracing a King.

Prove me wrong.

 

[hog88]

A President could declare any American - *ANY* American - a domestic terrorist.

Once that declaration is made, the President isn't "assassinating" anyone. Maybe said domestic terrorist is taken alive. Maybe not.

It's all in the wash. President's action was "an official act".

Prove me wrong.

How can I prove you wrong when there is nothing proving you right other than Obama got away with it?

 

[InVOLuntary]

They are meaningful. But the party choosing to set the result aside for good cause is hardly a coup.

What if information came to light that Trump in fact was on Putin's payroll? I mean, irrefutable evidence of it. Would the GOP be forced to nominate him at the upcoming convention? No, of course not.

If in this case the Dem party decides that Biden is not competent to be POTUS for the next four year,s that his decline is too imminent and substantial, they ought to be able to set aside the primary results, too.


Neither would be a good look. But as is, it seems to me that Biden has next to no chance to win and that it his own ego standing in the way. Reminds me a bit of RBG hanging on for too long. The old guard -- across the board (see e.g. McConnell) have to learn to step aside when the stepping is good.

If you really don't want Biden, just prosecute him for his crimes. You know? All the one's you've went after Trump for. You know, like withholding aid to a foreign government until you get a prosecutor fired. You know, having classified documents in your garage. You know, using the judicial branch to go after your political opponents and have them run interference and cover for your crimes.