Jump to content

SCOTUS Ruiling

Bigbrog

By Bigbrog
in Non Wrestling Topics

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Offthemat
Offthemat

Overruling Chevron doesn’t eliminate the agencies, it doesn’t give Congress the power to decide regulatory cases, it eliminates the deference given to agencies to write, prosecute, and judge their own

ionel
ionel

Exactly ... he does not have "absolute immunity" only within his constitutional authority.   

mspart
mspart

The agencies aren't going away.   But the regulations that are challenged and shown not to comport with actual law will/may be going away.  Big difference.  mspart  

Scouts Honor Big Brain

Scouts Honor

Posted
Posted
  On 7/1/2024 at 7:28 PM, 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

Expand  

is that anything like taking power from his unelected bureaucrats... as in chevron?

they gave it back to congress

  • Jagger 1
Offthemat Big Brain

Offthemat

Posted
Posted

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.

  • Bob 2
uncle bernard NCAA Champion

uncle bernard

Posted
Posted
  On 7/1/2024 at 7:50 PM, 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.

Expand  

What's your view on Watergate?

VakAttack Big Brain

VakAttack

Posted
Posted
  On 7/1/2024 at 7:50 PM, 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.

Expand  

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,’”

You are a voice of reason. - @Paul158

ionel Big Brain

ionel

Posted
Posted
  On 7/1/2024 at 7:38 PM, 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

Expand  

I didn't say "absolute immunity" and he doesn't have "absolute" now.  

  • Bob 1

.

Offthemat Big Brain

Offthemat

Posted
Posted
  On 7/1/2024 at 8:04 PM, 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,’”

Expand  

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. 

  • Bob 1
braves121 College Starter

braves121

Posted
Posted
  On 7/1/2024 at 8:32 PM, mspart said:

Watergate does not bother me.

Does your conscience bother you?  Tell me true.

mspart

Expand  

Guy who backs trump on everything does has no problems with water gate lmao of course 

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...