New SCOTUS Decision

[TexasTiger 14,070]

6 minutes ago, Tigermike said:

They've lied and covered for him for the past five years and the good of the country never entered their minds.

You think Melania or any Republicans can convince Trump to drop out for the good of the country?

[Tigermike 3,657]

24 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You think Melania or any Republicans can convince Trump to drop out for the good of the country?

Are you implying that Trump is as infirm,  incoherent and senile as Biden?

[creed 1,770]

5 minutes ago, Tigermike said:

Are you implying that Trump is as infirm,  incoherent and senile as Biden?

No, but If Biden drops out I wouild expect Trump to drop out as well. In fact he said as much during the debate (or at least what I heard) the only reason he ran this time was because of Biden and his bad policies. So no Biden....no need for Trump to remain in the race.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

14 minutes ago, Tigermike said:

Are you implying that Trump is as infirm,  incoherent and senile as Biden?

I’m implying he’s often incoherent,  pathologically narcissistic, grossly immoral and dangerously unhinged. But perhaps you think he’s the best Republicans can muster.

[Leftfield 3,307]

35 minutes ago, creed said:

No, but If Biden drops out I wouild expect Trump to drop out as well. In fact he said as much during the debate (or at least what I heard) the only reason he ran this time was because of Biden and his bad policies. So no Biden....no need for Trump to remain in the race.

Can I have what you're smoking?

[homersapien 12,172]

3 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

How old is the system and when didn't it work?

The system is not very old relatively speaking.

And it didn't work in the 1850s, which led to a major civil war.  And it didn't work for all citizens for almost a hundred years after that.

Don't take it for granted - especially considering the current far right Republican legislatures and clearly partisan SCOTUS.  (Notice their recent presidential immunity ruling?)

It's far more fragile than you seem to assume.

 

[Tigermike 3,657]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

I’m implying he’s often incoherent,  pathologically narcissistic, grossly immoral and dangerously unhinged. But perhaps you think he’s the best Republicans can muster.

Where would you be without hyperbole

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Just now, Tigermike said:

Where would you be without hyperbole

Who would you be without denial?

[Tigermike 3,657]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Who would you be without denial?

You've propped up Biden for five years and accuse others of denial.  What a farce.

[Leftfield 3,307]

13 minutes ago, Tigermike said:

Where would you be without hyperbole

What about his sentence was hyperbole?

[Cardin Drake 2,074]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

The system is not very old relatively speaking.

And it didn't work in the 1850s, which led to a major civil war.  And it didn't work for all citizens for almost a hundred years after that.

Don't take it for granted - especially considering the current far right Republican legislatures and clearly partisan SCOTUS.  (Notice their recent presidential immunity ruling?)

It's far more fragile than you seem to assume.

 

It is fragile.  Roberts addressed the dissenters to the presidential immunity ruling thusly, acknowledging the very real dangers of lawfare:

The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’” United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169, 172 (1966) (quoting Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479 (1910)). Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024) 41 Opinion of the Court avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors

[Leftfield 3,307]

15 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

It is fragile.  Roberts addressed the dissenters to the presidential immunity ruling thusly, acknowledging the very real dangers of lawfare:

The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’” United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169, 172 (1966) (quoting Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479 (1910)). Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024) 41 Opinion of the Court avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors

Well, how brilliant. He complains about dissenters fear mongering that future Presidents will feel emboldened to do something like what Trump actually did, while fear mongering about what others in the future might do. 

We see once again the lasting damage Trump has done to this country: If pretty much any other human being had held the office, this issue never comes up.

 

[AUFAN78 4,130]

31 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Well, how brilliant. He complains about dissenters fear mongering that future Presidents will feel emboldened to do something like what Trump actually did, while fear mongering about what others in the future might do. 

We see once again the lasting damage Trump has done to this country: If pretty much any other human being had held the office, this issue never comes up.

 

Did Trump prosecute his predecessor? 

[TexasTiger 14,070]

1 hour ago, Tigermike said:

You've propped up Biden for five years and accuse others of denial.  What a farce.

Yep. He’s been a mediocre president, and yet we don’t have constant crazy chaos coming front the WH and our allies like him. 

[Leftfield 3,307]

9 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Did Trump prosecute his predecessor? 

No, which is my entire point. Roberts' opinion was that it would become routine for Presidents or lawyers to go after previous Presidents, even though it's never happened, while ignoring the concerns the dissenters have about Presidents doing exactly what Trump has actually done.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

No, which is my entire point. Roberts' opinion was that it would become routine for Presidents or lawyers to go after previous Presidents, even though it's never happened, while ignoring the concerns the dissenters have about Presidents doing exactly what Trump has actually done.

Do you think they may have considered what is happening at present?

[AUFAN78 4,130]

15 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Yep. He’s been a mediocre president, and yet we don’t have constant crazy chaos coming front the WH and our allies like him. 

Maybe I've missed it, but which allies have come out since the debate and encouraged the US to give him 4 more years?

[Leftfield 3,307]

6 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Do you think they may have considered what is happening at present?

Are you seriously going to base your argument on the assumption that Biden ordered the prosecution of Trump? In any of the four cases against him?

[AUFAN78 4,130]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

Are you seriously going to base your argument on the assumption that Biden ordered the prosecution of Trump? In any of the four cases against him?

This isn't about me. We are talking about Roberts and the court. I asked you if this this weighed on the decision.

 

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

6 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

that Biden ordered the prosecution of Trump?

This four minute speech Biden gave about dissenting from the SCOTUS’s Immunity decision basically says he is very disappointed that the trails will not be held before Election Day.  One could take away from this that Biden may not have ordered the prosecution of Trump in these cases, but was highly encouraged until yesterday.  Its almost as if he was counting on those cases to win the election.  Of course Biden ordered the prosecution of his chief rival.

Biden has no one to blame but himself for this ruling, if he didn’t do the unthinkable, the SCOTUS would not have been involved.  Biden lied so much in this 4 minute speech he started to turn orange.

The President of the U.S. actually said, without proof, that Donald Trump *sent an angry mob to the capitol to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power*.  This is what the trail in DC was suppose to determine.  But this idiot just told America that Trump is guilty without a trail.

This is the type of thing that the Dems are so good at, lie to set the narrative and never apologize when proven wrong.

[Leftfield 3,307]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

This isn't about me. We are talking about Roberts and the court. I asked you if this this weighed on the decision.

 

In order for it to weigh on the decision, it would need to be true, or at least Roberts would have to believe it to be true. For the most part, Roberts has been fairly level-headed. I doubt he believes it to be true, so no, I don't think that weighs on it.

More likely, in my opinion, is Roberts' experience as an attorney. No doubt he's seen some unscrupulous and ambitious attorneys in his time. Doesn't change the fact that none of them have ever tried it before, and the first time it had ever been mentioned (at least widely enough in public to gain attention) was when Trump supporters who were pissed because they believe Biden is going after Trump suggested prosecuting him for not enforcing border laws.

And really, if we're going to talk about Presidents going after predecessors, is it more realistic to base it Biden, where there is zero evidence, or even need for that matter, that he was involved, or Trump, who has outright promised to do it?

How convenient, eh? The Supreme Court feels they have to protect future Presidents from the things Trump and his supporters are doing, and in doing so help Trump.

 

[Leftfield 3,307]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course Biden ordered the prosecution of his chief rival.

Your entire, idiotic train of thought is based on this.

As usual, you have no evidence. It's what you want to believe, and no amount of logic will dissuade you. This is MAGA - you don't have to like Trump at all to be MAGA, you just have to believe the entire system is so corrupt that it's better to burn it down no matter the cost, including what happened on January 6.

[Leftfield 3,307]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is the type of thing that the Dems are so good at, lie to set the narrative and never apologize when proven wrong.

When did you switch parties?

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

9 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Your entire, idiotic train of thought is based on this.

As usual, you have no evidence. It's what you want to believe, and no amount of logic will dissuade you. This is MAGA - you don't have to like Trump at all to be MAGA, you just have to believe the entire system is so corrupt that it's better to burn it down no matter the cost, including what happened on January 6.

You head is stuck up where the sun does not shine.

[Leftfield 3,307]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You head is stuck up where the sun does not shine.

Says the person who claims Trump was sincerely trying to stop the Capitol mob.