Scouts Honor Posted July 1 Posted July 1 50 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: Can any of the conservatives on here defending this explain why they think a US citizen should be able to break the law without consequence? I thought you were the law and order guys? biden ignores scotus all the time... 1 1
Scouts Honor Posted July 1 Posted July 1 20 minutes ago, braves121 said: The Supreme Court saying the president now has “absolute immunity” instead of “qualified immunity” is giving him more power and believe it or not that goes against the concept of small government :0 is that anything like taking power from his unelected bureaucrats... as in chevron? they gave it back to congress 1
Offthemat Posted July 1 Posted July 1 The Supreme Court didn’t change anything, they simply published what has been understood since the beginning, at least until FJB and Merrick Garland took office. Weaponizing the justice system to attack your political rival is unconstitutional. Officials acting officially are protected, officials acting corruptly are not. Nothing about this part of the ruling is new or improved over what has been practiced for centuries. What got my attention, made me say: “Wow!” was the part by Clarence Thomas. He wrote: "If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone authorized to do so by the American people." Indicating that Jack Smith is not legally qualified to prosecute this case. 2
uncle bernard Posted July 1 Posted July 1 8 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said: biden ignores scotus all the time... not an answer
uncle bernard Posted July 1 Posted July 1 6 minutes ago, Offthemat said: The Supreme Court didn’t change anything, they simply published what has been understood since the beginning, at least until FJB and Merrick Garland took office. Weaponizing the justice system to attack your political rival is unconstitutional. Officials acting officially are protected, officials acting corruptly are not. Nothing about this part of the ruling is new or improved over what has been practiced for centuries. What got my attention, made me say: “Wow!” was the part by Clarence Thomas. He wrote: "If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone authorized to do so by the American people." Indicating that Jack Smith is not legally qualified to prosecute this case. What's your view on Watergate?
Offthemat Posted July 1 Posted July 1 4 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: What's your view on Watergate? Read Geoff Shephard.
VakAttack Posted July 1 Posted July 1 8 minutes ago, Offthemat said: The Supreme Court didn’t change anything, they simply published what has been understood since the beginning, at least until FJB and Merrick Garland took office. Weaponizing the justice system to attack your political rival is unconstitutional. Officials acting officially are protected, officials acting corruptly are not. Nothing about this part of the ruling is new or improved over what has been practiced for centuries. What got my attention, made me say: “Wow!” was the part by Clarence Thomas. He wrote: "If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone authorized to do so by the American people." Indicating that Jack Smith is not legally qualified to prosecute this case. As a matter of fact, the wise legal masters at SCOTUS, trusted lieutenants to our Mighty Leader, did NOT say that about the weaponization of the justice system. In fact, they (very wisely of course) encouraged the Wise and Powerful Ruler to collaborate with the Justice Department, and not have it maintain it's independence, which was the dumb way we used to do it! From Chief Justice Roberts inarguable pen we got this: “The president may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ .... And the Attorney General, as head of the Justice Department, acts as the President’s ‘chief law enforcement officer’ who ‘provides vital assistance to [him] in the performance of [his] constitutional duty to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,’”
Scouts Honor Posted July 1 Posted July 1 10 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: not an answer so you think it's ok that he is lawless?
uncle bernard Posted July 1 Posted July 1 2 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said: so you think it's ok that he is lawless? no. do you think two wrongs make a right?
ionel Posted July 1 Posted July 1 27 minutes ago, braves121 said: The president did not have “absolute immunity” before this ruling. That is giving a government official literally more power than had before it’s comical you can’t see that is big government lol I didn't say "absolute immunity" and he doesn't have "absolute" now. 1 .
Scouts Honor Posted July 1 Posted July 1 watergate: nixon harrassed enemies with investigations sounds very similar to another president we had...
Scouts Honor Posted July 1 Posted July 1 watergate: nixon made an enemies list... sounds familiar to some current dems...
Scouts Honor Posted July 1 Posted July 1 1 minute ago, uncle bernard said: no. do you think two wrongs make a right? why is trump on trial and biden is not?
Scouts Honor Posted July 1 Posted July 1 4 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: no. do you think two wrongs make a right? but at least you admit biden is lawless
Offthemat Posted July 1 Posted July 1 2 minutes ago, VakAttack said: As a matter of fact, the wise legal masters at SCOTUS, trusted lieutenants to our Mighty Leader, did NOT say that about the weaponization of the justice system. In fact, they (very wisely of course) encouraged the Wise and Powerful Ruler to collaborate with the Justice Department, and not have it maintain it's independence, which was the dumb way we used to do it! From Chief Justice Roberts inarguable pen we got this: “The president may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ .... And the Attorney General, as head of the Justice Department, acts as the President’s ‘chief law enforcement officer’ who ‘provides vital assistance to [him] in the performance of [his] constitutional duty to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,’” It was written “between the lines” and as for the “way we used to do it” that has only been since Nixon, and predominantly by Republicans. The Congressionally contemptuous AG Eric Holder made no beans about being O’Bama’s wing man. 1
uncle bernard Posted July 1 Posted July 1 6 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said: but at least you admit biden is lawless still not an answer
Scouts Honor Posted July 1 Posted July 1 maybe that's your answer. you can't use hyperbole b/c it doesn't allow him to break the law.
mspart Posted July 1 Posted July 1 35 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: What's your view on Watergate? Watergate does not bother me. Does your conscience bother you? Tell me true. mspart 1 1
braves121 Posted July 1 Posted July 1 41 minutes ago, ionel said: I didn't say "absolute immunity" and he doesn't have "absolute" now. Did you read the ruling? The SC used the words “absolute immunity” lmao
braves121 Posted July 1 Posted July 1 19 minutes ago, mspart said: Watergate does not bother me. Does your conscience bother you? Tell me true. mspart Guy who backs trump on everything does has no problems with water gate lmao of course
Calli Gilchrist Choate Rosemary Hall, Connecticut Class of 2025 Committed to Brown (Women) Projected Weight: 124
Eren Sement Council Rock North, Pennsylvania Class of 2025 Committed to Michigan Projected Weight: 141
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now