Scouts Honor Posted July 2 Posted July 2 8 hours ago, VakAttack said: Another member of our Unquestioned Ruling Class there to fairly and balanced-ly lay out for us mere simpletons that no Ruler or Vice Ruler would ever engage in these kinds of criminal shenanigans. They're too pure of heart and spirit! Imagine if the leader of this man's coterie had been convicted of, say, 34 felonies, or if this man's party had spent the last two years having said coterie scream that the opposing Leader was in charge of some sort of...Crime Family or something. Thanks to the Men on the Wall like Mike Johnson, there only to shepherd us weak-minded lessers thru this life. Hail the Leaders! Hail the King! ikr he is an idiot he doesn't even realize biden is already doing it 1
Bigbrog Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 Ahhh...my morning laugh is out of the way. This thread continues to crack me up. I thoroughly enjoy the "sky is falling" crowd. Heck, we even have one coocoo speaking like they live under British rule again. What is refreshing is the few of you who actually rely on what the ruling actually is saying without interjecting the doomsday scenarios that we all know is not going to happen. 1
WrestlingRasta Posted July 2 Posted July 2 34 minutes ago, Bigbrog said: Ahhh...my morning laugh is out of the way. This thread continues to crack me up. I thoroughly enjoy the "sky is falling" crowd. Heck, we even have one coocoo speaking like they live under British rule again. What is refreshing is the few of you who actually rely on what the ruling actually is saying without interjecting the doomsday scenarios that we all know is not going to happen. So help me clarify what the opinion actually was: > President does have immunity for acts within his constitutional powers. >The phone call with the Attorney General was in fact, via Supreme Court opinion, an official act within his constitutional powers. >The remaining charges need to go back through hearings at the lower court to determine if they were official acts protected by constitutional powers. That about sum it up? 2
VakAttack Posted July 2 Posted July 2 23 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said: So help me clarify what the opinion actually was: > President does have immunity for acts within his constitutional powers. >The phone call with the Attorney General was in fact, via Supreme Court opinion, an official act within his constitutional powers. >The remaining charges need to go back through hearings at the lower court to determine if they were official acts protected by constitutional powers. That about sum it up? Good morrow, sir! Forget ye not the wise ruling from the magistrates that say that you can not really collect evidence against the King or Vice King as to whether an act is unofficial, thus sheathing the rules from any scrutiny from we unwashed masses! Verily, these scholars have truly shielded the Ruler in the ways God meant!
Paul158 Posted July 2 Posted July 2 19 hours ago, ionel said: By all accounts he had the same power before as after. You are applying common sense into this discussion . Good luck with that. Watching the mainstream media melt down over this is Dr. Phil level lunacy!!!! 2 1
Paul158 Posted July 2 Posted July 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bigbrog said: Ahhh...my morning laugh is out of the way. This thread continues to crack me up. I thoroughly enjoy the "sky is falling" crowd. Heck, we even have one coocoo speaking like they live under British rule again. What is refreshing is the few of you who actually rely on what the ruling actually is saying without interjecting the doomsday scenarios that we all know is not going to happen. Justice Sotomayor's decent is one for the ages. How can these highly educated law experts come up with these embarrassing responses. I can however see the uneducated mainstream media wetting their pants over this decision. Edited July 2 by Paul158 missed a word. 1
WrestlingRasta Posted July 2 Posted July 2 10 minutes ago, VakAttack said: Good morrow, sir! Forget ye not the wise ruling from the magistrates that say that you can not really collect evidence against the King or Vice King as to whether an act is unofficial, thus sheathing the rules from any scrutiny from we unwashed masses! Verily, these scholars have truly shielded the Ruler in the ways God meant! Can you answer in contemporary verbiage , I’m asking an honest question.
WrestlingRasta Posted July 2 Posted July 2 3 minutes ago, Paul158 said: Justice Sotomayor's decent is one for the ages. How can these highly educated law experts come up with embarrassing responses. I can however see the uneducated mainstream media wetting their pants over this decision. You say all this, but from what studing of constitutional law did you form such heavy opinions? Honest question. How many years have you spent studying constitutional law?
Offthemat Posted July 2 Posted July 2 5 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said: You say all this, but from what studing of constitutional law did you form such heavy opinions? Honest question. How many years have you spent studying constitutional law? How does her writing fit with your evaluation of the majority decision? 1 1
Paul158 Posted July 2 Posted July 2 3 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said: You say all this, but from what studing of constitutional law did you form such heavy opinions? Honest question. How many years have you spent studying constitutional law? I was wondering if you are in agreement with Justice Sotomayor's decent? This is what I am referring to. 1
WrestlingRasta Posted July 2 Posted July 2 11 minutes ago, Offthemat said: How does her writing fit with your evaluation of the majority decision? I am still formulating my evaluation of the decision. First step in my process is to ask questions. 1
WrestlingRasta Posted July 2 Posted July 2 7 minutes ago, Paul158 said: I was wondering if you are in agreement with Justice Sotomayor's decent? This is what I am referring to. Well, you conveniently dodged my question by turning it around and asking me one, but rather than go with the stupid tit for tat “answer my question” game that goes on around here, I’ll go ahead. I am not in agreement or disagreement yet because I don’t have enough information on it. I have not read the entire opinion yet, I am asking questions. I don’t want to make the mistake of acting like I know more than 9 Supreme Court justices who have spent their life dedicated to the constitution because I real a couple internet clicks. Now, will you reciprocate by answering my original question, how many years have you spent studying constitutional law?
WrestlingRasta Posted July 2 Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, JimmyBT said: This one will sit on the fence as he most always does. Wait….am I always sitting on the fence? Or am I always crying and whining. Which is it?? (You are too obsessed with me, I’m here to help if you are crying out, you don’t have to go about it this way).
JimmyBT Posted July 2 Posted July 2 7 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said: Wait….am I always sitting on the fence? Or am I always crying and whining. Which is it?? (You are too obsessed with me, I’m here to help if you are crying out, you don’t have to go about it this way). Yep. And yep. I just hate pu$$ies that try to get me kicked off by whining to the mods is all
JimmyBT Posted July 2 Posted July 2 12 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said: Well, you conveniently dodged my question by turning it around and asking me one, but rather than go with the stupid tit for tat “answer my question” game that goes on around here, I’ll go ahead. I am not in agreement or disagreement yet because I don’t have enough information on it. I have not read the entire opinion yet, I am asking questions. I don’t want to make the mistake of acting like I know more than 9 Supreme Court justices who have spent their life dedicated to the constitution because I real a couple internet clicks. Now, will you reciprocate by answering my original question, how many years have you spent studying constitutional law? Gotta love when people waste time asking stupid questions they already know the answer to.
WrestlingRasta Posted July 2 Posted July 2 4 minutes ago, JimmyBT said: Yep. And yep. I just hate pu$$ies that try to get me kicked off by whining to the mods is all Well I never said anything about being kicked off, just asked if they were going to do something about you going over the line, which you have stopped doing in that particular regard, so....... What is entertaining is that you continue to bring it up, as if mentioning over and over again my calling you out in public for everyone to see, is somehow telling people something about me, or somehow bothering me. When what it really does is just illustrate how extremely intense those feelings are that you are still holding on to over it. It's okay. It's over, and you learned and experienced a little bit of growth........a little bit. You are really not good at this. You should go find another "lake to enjoy". We've had our fun here for the day.
Paul158 Posted July 2 Posted July 2 40 minutes ago, Paul158 said: I was wondering if you are in agreement with Justice Sotomayor's decent? This is what I am referring to. I watch and listen to the constitutional law experts from both sides. I also read what posters on this forum have to say on the subject. There are quite a few very knowledgeable posters on this forum. that I learn a great deal from. Then I do my evaluation. I like most of the posters on this have not studied constitutional law nor do I have a degree in constitutional law.
WrestlingRasta Posted July 2 Posted July 2 22 minutes ago, Paul158 said: I watch and listen to the constitutional law experts from both sides. I also read what posters on this forum have to say on the subject. There are quite a few very knowledgeable posters on this forum. that I learn a great deal from. Then I do my evaluation. I like most of the posters on this have not studied constitutional law nor do I have a degree in constitutional law. Okay I just wanted to clarify if you had actually studied constitutional law or just learned from reading media and internet, cuz you seem to take real issue with people who just run with what they read on media. Thank you.
Offthemat Posted July 2 Posted July 2 3 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said: I am still formulating my evaluation of the decision. First step in my process is to ask questions. It’s kind of a long read, the decision, dissent, and all.
WrestlingRasta Posted July 2 Posted July 2 1 minute ago, Offthemat said: It’s kind of a long read, the decision, dissent, and all. Probably an event for weekend coffee…
Offthemat Posted July 2 Posted July 2 15 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said: Probably an event for weekend coffee… No hurry, unless you’re an attorney or judge or involved.
WrestlingRasta Posted July 2 Posted July 2 1 minute ago, Offthemat said: No hurry, unless you’re an attorney or judge or involved. Neither, niether, nor Appreciate the input
Conor Delaney Rumson Fair Haven, New Jersey Class of 2025 Committed to Princeton Projected Weight: 197
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