201–210 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok he can tell his chain of command some lies then. Same difference.
How on earth is that going to make the orders lawful?
And that wasn't anywhere near the amount of deference the president gets when it comes to emergency and war powers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And notably, before any further disagreement pops up the other dissenting judges literally said as much. The relevant quote: "When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon?…
Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. As a practical matter, if the president is ordering the military to do those things and the military is obeying those orders, we are far beyond the point where concepts like legal immunity matter.
So yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the hallmarks of authoritarianism is to have laws that are virtually impossible to not break. I hope this gets tested in court and declared unconstitutional for being overly vague and arbitrary. For example, Montana used to have some maximum speed limits that were just "reasonable and prudent", but they were eventually rejected by courts as being too vague (what's prudent to you may not be prudent to someone e…
> I hope this gets tested in court and declared unconstitutional The rule of law has left the building. The SC is willing to rubber-stamp nearly anything right now. Waiting and hoping for common sense to prevail is what allows authoritarian regimes to bulldoze through existing laws and norms. Even if the courts were an avenue for redress, they are being overwhelmed by the daily barrage of new illegal and unconstituti…
See also Alito's outrage about deportations being fast tracked to SCOTUS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. Just to be clear: you are disagreeing with a dissenting Supreme Court justice on how much the law protects the president. Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law?
Are you disagreeing with all 6 concurring Supreme Court justices on much the law protects the president? Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law? See how stupid that argument is?
You should read the decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? The ruling was that he had full immunity during "presidential duties", which has many times been interpreted by the SC as "anything he wants to do while president."
> The ruling was that he had full immunity during "presidential duties" Yes. This was basically agreed upon before that the president has legal immunity for exercising his constitutional powers, but was never explicitly ruled on by the court. If the president does something outside his legal authority, then that isn't his presidential duty, and he can be punished. > which has many times been interpreted by the SC as…
Your choice of words is rather telling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they also said the president can’t be punished for doing illegal things, so what difference does it make?
Trump claimed repeatedly and vigorously that whatever the President does is by definition legal. He also repeatedly and vigorously claimed that Obama had broken the law by spying on then-candidate Trump in 2016. I don't know if he himself noticed the contradiction but blustered on anwway or was too dense to notice. [BTW, Trump wasn't spied on -- Russian assets were spied on and it turned out that some of those commun…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't mind being labeled a terrorist. You should. It's not meant for your vanity and it represents and extreme overreach by the government. It doesn't make you "cool." > But you couldn't pay me to go there. Of course we could. Aside from that this mentality always shocks me. There are more civilians in the US than government agents. What were you expecting when you got here? It's madness.. > One man's terrorist..…
A civil war is coming whether you like it or not. The mentally-ill are running the asylum and executing citizens. No matter what crazy shit the gop/tea party/maga have accused the left of NONE of it came to pass until they themselves were in power. The administration WANTS a civil war; they’re ensuring one happens. If you’re against owning guns, you’re in for a world of hurt. So buckle-up butter cup, shit is gonna be…
The the natural outcome should be rebellion. Why would it be civil war? Do you presume that the "other half" completely agree with Trump and would literally fight you to the death over it? You bandy about these terms as if you do not understand their true meaning.
> The administration WANTS a civil war
So you're going to play exactly into that? Why on earth would you give your "enemy" precisely what they seem to want? You can't detect the manipulation here?
> you’re in for a world of hurt
One of us is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the problem, from what I've been hearing most of the actual criminals they've been "catching" are turned over by local and state law enforcement agencies with the rest are either in the process of criminal proceedings (that pesky "innocent until proven guilty" thing) or are involved in the immigration process as dictated by law. They are literally pulling people out of judicial hearings, where the people are t…
No, blue state sanctuary cities do not turn over illegal alien criminals to ICE. They release them back into the community even though they have a ICE notice on them. ICE is then forced to track down these criminals themselves while being tracked and harassed by crazy far left agitators that do everything in their power to protect these criminals.
It's never just a simple leftist. It's never just a regular centrist dude who thinks things might be a little aggressive.
It's always {extreme adjective} far left.
Everything has to be superlative.