The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#10,579
#10,579
RockyTop85 said:
Initial thought:
I think that’s a great reason for setting a bar. I don’t know, yet, that I see that as a good reason for where they put the bar.

If Biden did anything like this, I’d want him prosecuted.

My main gripe is still that it’s seemingly not helpful to the district court in determining where the line is on official vs. unofficial or what official activity, if any, is beyond the pale. It’s like they punted on those issues. They’ll have to see the case again to decide that.

Follow up thought: maybe being vague about where the bar is ends up being a good thing.
Click to expand...
The tit for tat has to stop somehow. It’s a waste of time and completely deadlocks Congress from legislating if their only reason to exist is eternal battle to the death with the executive branch.

Hey don’t get me wrong I’m as big a fan of deadlock as anyone else but at some point it would be nice to see a clean budget passed not another CR, maybe addressing immigration and border issues, etc… At this point it’s just a lethal dodgeball battle to the death with no end in sight and teams just swapping court sides every four years. Hey it can be entertaining but that isn’t really productive 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel, Vol since 77, 825VOL and 1 other person
#10,583
#10,583
turbovol said:
You sodbusters are funny. Harris not qualified? Compared to who? The Gangster? 😭 😭 😭 😭 🤣 🤣

That you try to diss Harris for supposedly having a fling or two 20 years while supporting the gangster demonstrates
in high relief how utterly lame the Earls are. I think it's really just standard-issue MAGA racism and misogyny.

A fling or two versus a felony convictions, bank-fraud conviction, defamation conviction, HALF A BILLION IN FINES
still to paid, stolen classified documents, two impeachments, two more trials forthcoming....

Ya'll funny. Totally lame, but funny.
🤣
Click to expand...
It isn’t “supposedly”, Karen. Willie Brown and his wife said so and they have first hand knowledge. Again you keep whistling right on by the fact that anyone with any common sense on either side of the aisle accepts the account of her conduct as fact.
 
Last edited:
#10,585
#10,585
NorthDallas40 said:
I made a post earlier on referencing a comment I heard one of the pundits point out today. For all of those wanting Trump to exact revenge on the current admin if he gets back to the WH remember the same protections bailing him out today will extend to puddinhead in kind after he leaves office.

So honestly in that regard I think it’s a good thing. Enough with the tit for tat revenge tactics. Nobody wins in the long term
Click to expand...
I’d settle for 51 interference officers and call it a day.
 
#10,587
#10,587
NorthDallas40 said:
The tit for tat has to stop somehow. It’s a waste of time and completely deadlocks Congress from legislating if their only reason to exist is eternal battle to the death with the executive branch.

Hey don’t get me wrong I’m as big a fan of deadlock as anyone else but at some point it would be nice to see a clean budget passed not another CR, maybe addressing immigration and border issues, etc… At this point it’s just a lethal dodgeball battle to the death with no end in sight and teams just swapping court sides every four years. Hey it can be entertaining but that isn’t really productive 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
I’m saying that when you’ve got a guy who already sank to these depths to keep his office, despite losing an election, handing him a pretty broad grant of immunity seems dangerous.

This seems like that but I guess it doesn’t have to be since it’s kind of ambiguous.
 
#10,589
#10,589
Majors said:
I’d settle for 51 interference officers and call it a day.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting point people should remember. While the office of the chief executive might be immune those acting on any misguided direction most definitely are subject to very public consequences

Example: G Gordon Liddy and Richard Nixon
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#10,590
#10,590
RockyTop85 said:
I’m saying that when you’ve got a guy who already sank to these depths to keep his office, despite losing an election, handing him a pretty broad grant of immunity seems dangerous.

This seems like that but I guess it doesn’t have to be since it’s kind of ambiguous.
Click to expand...
I understand your position I think. But SCOTUS just made very clear what most people have said in cases on both sides of the aisle over the years.

1719870432895.gif
 
#10,591
#10,591
RockyTop85 said:
I’m saying that when you’ve got a guy who already sank to these depths to keep his office, despite losing an election, handing him a pretty broad grant of immunity seems dangerous.

This seems like that but I guess it doesn’t have to be since it’s kind of ambiguous.
Click to expand...
I view that the immunity was always there. It just had to be reenforced by the high court due to the current party's low-level tactics to maintain their power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#10,593
#10,593
hog88 said:
If the Feds want you dead you're gonna be dead. Been that way since the 1860s.
Click to expand...
Was thinking about this more.
Obama and Clinton killed Americans.
Did Bush 2 or Trump?

Maybe Ds kill Americans and Rs dont???
 
#10,595
#10,595
MontyPython said:
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
Click to expand...
I posted about it in a negative manner.

I think its going to be like the Chevron case, seems like a win for conservatives at the time, but ends up biting them in the butt. the irony is that you are up in arms about your bigger government, not as fun when the bigger government isn't wearing your colors. will probably take the same 40 or 50 years for situations to change to get the ruling fixed, or amended enough, to make sense.

imo, the problem wasn't with the RULING the courts made. the issue is what the courts were having to rule on. basically, better laws and this same court probably finds differently. I think someone, Congress, is going to have to lay out and define each of those president scope categories better to make them make sense.

it always should have been some middle ground, from Trump wanting total immunity, vs the AD wanting no immunity. but what we got was something that placed it too close to total immunity with too much gray for the lawyers in DC to play with some incredibly shady and down right bad actions.

but the good news for you is that the Dems will be the next ones to use this exact same ruling, and you will be arguing for it at the time.
 
#10,596
#10,596
McDad said:
Was thinking about this more.
Obama and Clinton killed Americans.
Did Bush 2 or Trump?

Maybe Ds kill Americans and Rs dont???
Click to expand...

IDK for sure but they probably did, maybe not a direct targeted killing but I'd be surprised if they didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#10,597
#10,597
CobbVol said:
I view that the immunity was always there. It just had to be reenforced by the high court due to the current party's low-level tactics to maintain their power.
Click to expand...
I disagree and the outcome doesn’t support your premise. They left open the question of whether the overwhelming majority of his conduct was even official conduct. If it was all low-brow politics they could have dumped the case.

It seems like you guys are borrowing talking points from the New York case and I just don’t think they’re transferable. What happened here was actually bad.
 
#10,598
#10,598
LouderVol said:
I posted about it in a negative manner.

I think its going to be like the Chevron case, seems like a win for conservatives at the time, but ends up biting them in the butt. the irony is that you are up in arms about your bigger government, not as fun when the bigger government isn't wearing your colors. will probably take the same 40 or 50 years for situations to change to get the ruling fixed, or amended enough, to make sense.

imo, the problem wasn't with the RULING the courts made. the issue is what the courts were having to rule on. basically, better laws and this same court probably finds differently. I think someone, Congress, is going to have to lay out and define each of those president scope categories better to make them make sense.

it always should have been some middle ground, from Trump wanting total immunity, vs the AD wanting no immunity. but what we got was something that placed it too close to total immunity with too much gray for the lawyers in DC to play with some incredibly shady and down right bad actions.

but the good news for you is that the Dems will be the next ones to use this exact same ruling, and you will be arguing for it at the time.
Click to expand...

How do you see the Chevron ruling biting conservatives in the ass?
 
#10,599
#10,599
McDad said:
Was thinking about this more.
Obama and Clinton killed Americans.
Did Bush 2 or Trump?

Maybe Ds kill Americans and Rs dont???
Click to expand...
Both have. Bushs were more interested in drug and arms trafficking, although the rumors were Barry Seal was taken out by them. (I actually have some background on this.)
 
#10,600
#10,600
hog88 said:
I would find it hard to believe that any court would classify the assassination of a political opponent an "official act".
Click to expand...
dude, did you miss Covid? going to be plenty of emergencies and special situations that are played up.

there are plenty of people making laws out there, and people ruling on them, where a lot of bad, up and maybe past assassinations are going to be okayed. even if its just the initial act, it will be okayed, and it will take 40 years to "fix it" and stop 40 years of bad acts, and the people responsible will not pay the price.

Obama's use of the IRS to go after Republicans just got green lit.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top