b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 6 minutes ago, Dodger said: Yeah none of that is going to happen Bribe in exchange for a pardon or other official act is very much going to happen other stuff won’t happen in our lifetime if we are lucky. But we do have a vindictive asshole (among other similarly awful traits) with a lot to lose as one of the two people who will be president next year and comes from the Jim Crow political tradition so don’t be too sure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siebzehn Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 10 minutes ago, Dodger said: Yeah none of that is going to happen I feel like she'd have a pretty decent grasp of the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal-El814 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 19 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: It goes far beyond that. It essentially says that presidents have "presumptive" immunity for their official actions without providing any significant guidance as to what constitutes "official" versus "private" acts. The Supreme Court has basically decided to Jordan Peterson every fuckin issue. FDA: water should be clean and safe to drink, the air should be clean, meat should be free of taint Lead Pipe Bros. Inc., Coalface McGee, Cowfuckers LLC: fuck you we're going to SCOTUS SCOTUS: who can say what clean and safe even mean? We haven't defined water and air yet. I sweat water, does that have to be safe? I exhale CO2, is that a crime now? Taint like the spot behind my balls? Am I not made of meat myself? I am a very serious legal body that should be taken seriously --- POTUS Frank Castle: I have personally and officially executed Senators Richards, Xavier, and Stark SCOUTS: brows furrow, hands wring 11 minutes ago, Dodger said: Yeah none of that is going to happen My brother in Cthulhu we were one Mike Pence away from the last election straight up being swindled and if you think bullshit like what Trump attempted to do and almost successfully did wouldn't be considered an official act, I've got some Beanie Babies, NFTs, and cure all tonics to sell you. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 3 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said: The Supreme Court has basically decided to Jordan Peterson every fuckin issue. FDA: water should be clean and safe to drink, the air should be clean, meat should be free of taint Lead Pipe Bros. Inc., Coalface McGee, Cowfuckers LLC: fuck you we're going to SCOTUS SCOTUS: who can say what clean and safe even mean? We haven't defined water and air yet. I sweat water, does that have to be safe? I exhale CO2, is that a crime now? Taint like the spot behind my balls? Am I not made of meat myself? I am a very serious legal body that should be taken seriously --- POTUS Frank Castle: I have personally and officially executed Senators Richards, Xavier, and Stark SCOUTS: brows furrow, hands wring My brother in Cthulhu we were one Mike Pence away from the last election straight up being swindled and if you think bullshit like what Trump attempted to do and almost successfully did wouldn't be considered an official act, I've got some Beanie Babies, NFTs, and cure all tonics to sell you. People are saying Trump will have rivals killed, democrats rounded up into concentration camps, immigrants being shot at the border, and other please log off the internet and touch grass moments. Pro tip: Trump was never going to be prosecuted for any of that anyway. i 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 20 minutes ago, Dodger said: Yeah none of that is going to happen Yeah, simply hoping for the best in shitty people when the courts give them this kinda power isn't a great stance to take. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siebzehn Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 2 minutes ago, Dodger said: People are saying Trump will have rivals killed, democrats rounded up into concentration camps, immigrants being shot at the border, and other please log off the internet and touch grass moments. Nothing is ever going to happen until it does 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 2 minutes ago, Dodger said: People are saying Trump will have rivals killed, democrats rounded up into concentration camps, immigrants being shot at the border, and other please log off the internet and touch grass moments. Pro tip: Trump was never going to be prosecuted for any of that anyway. i Were you also positive an attempted coup on the Capitol was definitely going to happen and possible in 21st century America? Because I was sure it wouldn’t happen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 2 minutes ago, Dodger said: People are saying Trump will have rivals killed, democrats rounded up into concentration camps, immigrants being shot at the border, and other please log off the internet and touch grass moments. Pro tip: Trump was never going to be prosecuted for any of that anyway. i "They will never do x" is overturned like every fucking day and you want to bet it all on norms being upheld when we're dealing with the most corrupt and pathological liar the US has ever had in office? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 ACS Statement in Response to SCOTUS Decision in Trump v. United States | ACS WWW.ACSLAW.ORG Quote In decisions like Trump, Loper Bright, Corner Post, Biden v. Nebraska, SEC v. Jarkesy, the Court has asserted that while the President can break the law with a type of immunity typically only enjoyed by kings and autocrats, the regulations his or her agencies promulgate can be overridden by an all-powerful Court who simply disagrees with the policies advanced, and Congress has little say on either account. This is not what the Constitution demands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUFKAK Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 I regret every single second I spent serving this nation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 1 hour ago, Dodger said: Yeah none of that is going to happen I too was born today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 1 hour ago, Dodger said: Yeah none of that is going to happen I don't want to try and make fun of you, but I am bookmarking this for January 2025 just in case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 I thought this was a pretty insightful post from one of the threads on ResetERA: Quote I don't hate it? I don't love it, but I don't hate it. I think the sticking point is unofficial vs. official and the fairly absurd reasoning Roberts gives to exclude motive. Motive is the core of anti-corruption jurisprudence and creating a formula around scope of authority rather than the actual use of that authority is silly. On the other hand, to use his own example, if the government can show that Trump was directing Pence to dismiss certain electors then that would defeat the presumption of official action because the president has no authority over the certification of elections. It's a weird test because we're used to motive being a key component of prosecution. I'm trying to figure out what kind of prosecution this would forestall, but it's harder than I expected. My first thought was RICO or conspiracy, since those are the "I want the object of this bad thing" modes of prosecution. But the opinion says the facts as presented would be unofficial - working with others - vs the clearly official act of conferring with the Attorney General. It seems like the President is only ever wearing one hat, but in this case at least they're OK with him wearing two. I agree with Coney-Barrett about specifically excluding evidence of official acts. That makes no sense whatsoever. There's a set of rules for evidence and creating a brand new category of inadmissible evidence in what is more or less an unrelated decision is ridiculous. I get what Roberts is saying: A "bad" official act is still an official act so you can't bolster a case against unofficial acts by bringing in unpopular official acts to make the defendant look worse. But that's a relevance issue and courts do that all the time. Very stupid but also clearly aimed at helping Trump. So basically the question now is "does this action fall within the authority of the office of the president?" as opposed to a much better "was this action taken for some improper purpose?" But it's not an unreasonable position given the idea behind immunity is to forestall prosecution. It would defeat the purpose if every case that was brought was had to go through fact-finding to determine whether the president was really presidenting or whether he was pretending to president while criming. That is kind of addressed by this presumption of officialness that they've created, but not really. It's unwieldy and weird but it's not that different. No, the president can't have the military assassinate people. The president is basically immune from being prosecuted for misusing the justice department, but no president was ever going to be prosecuted for that anyway. I think the flowchart now from absolutely immune to not immune is "Is this specifically in the constitution?" -no-> "Is the behavior within the normal operation of the executive?" -no-> "Is the object of the behavior within the power of the executive?" -no-> sue that president. I think people are getting hung up on the presumption bit. Presumptions can be rebutted. The problem is that it's murky what is executive and what isn't, whereas it's relatively more clear what is done for corrupt purposes vs not. It's bad because a much better test is available, but it's not bad in and of itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Biden will be delivering remarks about the ruling at 7:45pm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 6 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: I thought this was a pretty insightful post from one of the threads on ResetERA: Direct link to the poster? For my sanity, I hope some of these takes on Reset are correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5timechamp Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Biden, just jail Trump and the bribe taking SCOTUS members call it an official act.. lets find out if Immunity of current President “Trumps” privilige of ex-president.. all the idiots who say too much government power is bad are of course celebrating Trump and future presidents near absolute power Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 1 minute ago, SaysWho? said: Direct link to the poster? For my sanity, I hope some of these takes on Reset are correct. https://www.resetera.com/threads/trump-on-trial-episode-5-ot-the-one-with-the-insurrection.741855/post-125259474 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5timechamp Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 3 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: Biden will be delivering remarks about the ruling at 7:45pm. the usual Democrats battlecry of “this is bad” We need a f’n Democrat alpha to use this “power” to its most absurd conclusion to show these clowns why this is bad.. the Democrat “file appeal and aggressively disagree method” is dooming the country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 2 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: https://www.resetera.com/threads/trump-on-trial-episode-5-ot-the-one-with-the-insurrection.741855/post-125259474 Thanks. Hope the people smarter than I am are right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblfilms Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Been here in the D.C. area all day dealing with a goofy small county government official. A lot of sitting around waiting. It gave me a chance to read the opinion and dissent start to finish, and then go over a few important parts in more depth. I feel as though this is like a lot of rulings in the last 3 years. The court goes further than I would have liked, yet I don’t think the sky-is-falling response is warranted. I would have loved actual clarity from the court on the fundamental question of what exactly makes an act official. But the lack of clarity is not itself license to do ill. There is certainly good reason to have concern that the ruling emboldens the executive to go further than they would have prior to this, but it does not actually grant immunity in the way that the exaggerated responses are saying and suggesting. There is also fair reason to view this as another cut on the way to the 1000 that will kill you, even though I don’t myself see it quite that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ort Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 I mean, this is kinda what the law already said. I'm pretty sure the main goal was just to delay everything as long as possible so that they can do their best to help the vile subhuman bipedal pile of trash that is Donald Trump assume power again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBladeRoden Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 No wonder they didn't want to hear the facts of the case. "We waited 6 months to tell you there's a difference between official and unofficial acts. But please come back in 6 months before we can tell you if THIS act in question was official or unofficial" And Biden can't really take advantage of this ruling because who's to say they won't declare everything Trump did official and everything Biden did unofficial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 The following is not directed at most people on this board, but just a rant from the general attitude I'm seeing among various people. Some people seem to be missing the fact that the limitation of "official" vs "unofficial" that might lead you to believe this won't be so bad is part of the design, or at least indistinguishable from corrupt design. They allow them to say to say "oh it's not that extreme" while in practice making it easier to carry out corrupt acts by turning into a debate what's official or not. It allows future administrations to use use mob-like "sure would be shame" tactics where they can argue that it was all innocent and hide behind purported "official" actions. And that's just the short term. Slightly longer term this makes it easier for them to turn the crank again. Each turn will be just small enough to allow defenders to proclaim "oh well it's not that much different than before" until eventually our nation is unrecognizable. This ruling doesn't happen in vacuum. It's one more hit in the steady stream of corrupt anti-democratic rulings this court has been issuing. Failed nations aren't some mythical hypothetical. They happen. Thinking "oh but not to us" is exactly how you allow them to happen. Giving the President more room for "immunity" claims is one of the most un-American rulings I can imagine. Or at least "un-American" in the romanticized notion of what we were told America was about. Nothing of value is gained from this ruling, only more room for corruption. 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 Trump Moves to Overturn Hush-Money Conviction, Citing Immunity Decision - The New York Times WWW.NYTIMES.COM Former President Donald J. Trump took the action hours after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling granted him immunity for official acts committed in office. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 10 minutes ago, legend said: The following is not directed at most people on this board, but just a rant from the general attitude I'm seeing among various people. Some people seem to be missing the fact that the limitation of "official" vs "unofficial" that might lead you to believe this won't be so bad are part of the design, or at least indistinguishable from corrupt design. They allow them to say to say "oh it's not that extreme" while in practice making it easier to carry out corrupt acts by turning into a debate about what's official or not. It allows future administrations to use use mob-like "sure would be shame" tactics where they can argue that it was all innocent and hide behind purported "official" actions. And that's just the short term. Slightly longer term this makes it easier for them to turn the crank again. Each turn will be just small enough to allow defenders to proclaim "oh well it's not that much different than before" until eventually our nation is unrecognizable. This ruling doesn't happen in vacuum. It's one more hit on the steady stream of corrupt anti-democratic rulings this court has been issuing. Failed nations aren't some mythical hypothetical. They happen. Thinking "oh but not to us" is exactly how you allow them to happen. Giving the President more room for "immunity" claims is one of the most un-American rulings I can imagine. Or at least "un-American" in the romanticized notion of what we were told America was about. Nothing of value is gained from this ruling, only more room for corruption. We have all become so inured to Trumpism that it really isn't talked about, or even remembered, that a huge part of the first year or two of his presidency was a string of basically him doing something completely unprecedented. Everyone being shocked, horrified, and outraged....and then we all had the pleasure as a country of learning, "Oh yeah, that was never a law, it was just a "norm"" Remember that? Remember the slow, lingering death of norms? Why are we giving Trump or SCOTUS the benefit of the doubt when this ruling basically says nearly EVERYTHING is just a "norm" now. All Trump does is push, and push, and push on the absolute boundaries of what he is capable of getting away with. That is not just him as president... that's his entire life. So now we are just supposed to assume the best when someone hands him a loaded gun and tells him he's on the honor system? 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Biden's remarks begin at 10:53 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 11 minutes ago, Jason said: Trump Moves to Overturn Hush-Money Conviction, Citing Immunity Decision - The New York Times WWW.NYTIMES.COM Former President Donald J. Trump took the action hours after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling granted him immunity for official acts committed in office. Who among us could have imagined that this ruling would immediately be abused as much as possible? Yes, yes, once again the deluded will tell us "but it won't apply here" completely missing the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 16 minutes ago, Jason said: Trump Moves to Overturn Hush-Money Conviction, Citing Immunity Decision - The New York Times WWW.NYTIMES.COM Former President Donald J. Trump took the action hours after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling granted him immunity for official acts committed in office. How would that even apply here since these were acts taken before he was president? Am I right? Or missing something? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Just now, CastlevaniaNut18 said: How would that even apply here since these were acts taken before he was president? Am I right? Or missing something? He signed the checks while president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Just now, CastlevaniaNut18 said: How would that even apply here since these were acts taken before he was president? Am I right? Or missing something? You are right he just doesn't care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said: How would that even apply here since these were acts taken before he was president? Am I right? Or missing something? A reasonable reading would suggest it doesn't apply. But there's the rub, and the dice for the "reasonable reading" will be rolled as often as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Just now, legend said: A reasonable reading would suggest it doesn't apply. But there's the rub, and the dice for the "reasonable reading" will be rolled as often as possible. He argued that him calling E. Jean Carroll too ugly to rape was an official presidential act.....so I don't expect much restraint from Trump when it comes to this new toy they just handed him..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 8 minutes ago, Chairslinger said: He signed the checks while president. You see personal/business checks signed by the president are official presidential acts because the president signs bills into law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.