Judge Luttig comments on immunity ruling

[homersapien 12,172]

 

This greatly increases the danger to our democracy and liberty another Trump presidency represents.

 

 

 

Edited July 7 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,172]

"There is nothing in our constitution that supports this decision".

They have instituted a "King" of the United States.

The Republican Party and the Heritage Foundation are the ones "destroying our country".

Edited July 7 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,866]

You do know that SCOTUS is a third of the Federal Govt? They are in the Constitution. And what some random judge somewhere thinks of any decision is truly meaningless.

Roe? How many judges ridiculed that? It was SCOTUS basically legislating. 

[Leftfield 3,307]

51 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

And what some random judge somewhere thinks of any decision is truly meaningless.

You're correct in that an opinion doesn't change anything, but Luttig is a bit more than a "random judge." He was a very influential conservative judge, had close ties with the Reagan and both Bush administrations, and was almost nominated for the Supreme Court himself. 

[homersapien 12,172]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/supreme-court-trump-v-anderson-fourteenth-amendment/677755/

Supreme Betrayal

A requiem for Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment

By J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe

 

[DKW 86 7,866]

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

You're correct in that an opinion doesn't change anything, but Luttig is a bit more than a "random judge." He was a very influential conservative judge, had close ties with the Reagan and both Bush administrations, and was almost nominated for the Supreme Court himself. 

Sounds random to me. I can’t recall reading anything written before. But, I am an older white guy, admittedly not as sharp as I once was. 

[auburnatl1 6,020]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

"There is nothing in our constitution that supports this decision".

They have instituted a "King" of the United States.

The Republican Party and the Heritage Foundation are the ones "destroying our country".

The disappointing part of all this is how Jan 6th is slowly being normalized. Just a few guys that got out of control. Overreaction. Media hysteria.

Minimize, deny, deflect. Mob rule.  

As I’ve said before, I don’t think Heritage and other similar groups are evil. In fact I’m sure they see themselves as the good guys. Ends justifies the means. My way or the highway. What I don’t think they understand  is democracy is a much more complex and imo Christian concept that caliphate. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cardin Drake 2,074]

The immunity decision wouldn't be controversial at all if it weren't interfering in the left's lawfare against Trump. 

[Leftfield 3,307]

29 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

The immunity decision wouldn't be controversial at all if it weren't interfering in the left's lawfare against Trump. 

BS.

[homersapien 12,172]

32 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

The immunity decision wouldn't be controversial at all if it weren't interfering in the left's lawfare against Trump. 

For example....?

If "lawfare" means following the rule of law, I'm all for it.  But it's no more than a meme MAGAs invented because Dear Leader doesn't respect the rule of law.

Edited July 8 by homersapien

[Gowebb11 9,801]

59 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

But, I am an older white guy, admittedly not as sharp as I once was. 

Congratulations! You’re now qualified to run for US President. 

[autigeremt 7,131]

11 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

Congratulations! You’re now qualified to run for US President. 

He’s not that old! 🤪

[AUFAN78 4,130]

13 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

The disappointing part of all this is how Jan 6th is slowly being normalized. Just a few guys that got out of control. Overreaction. Media hysteria.

In my view, there is nearly 100% consensus those who committed violence deserve the book thrown at them. There may have been some overreaction in charges as the Supreme Court recently outlined. Media hysteria has been a thing for quite some time, unfortunately. Not a fan.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

13 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

The immunity decision wouldn't be controversial at all if it weren't interfering in the left's lawfare against Trump. 

The media overreaction and misrepresentation of the ruling seem to validate the claim. But the ruling wouldn't have happened if not for Trump/lawfare.

Edited July 9 by AUFAN78

[Cardin Drake 2,074]

8 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

The media overreaction and misrepresentation of the ruling seem to validate the claim. But the ruling wouldn't have happened if not for Trump/lawfare.

I think that is true. The Justices see the absurd cases being brought against Trump, and that was the catalyst to give him and any future Presidents a large stick to defend themselves with.  But the ruling is still correct. Presidents make tough decisions every day. Heck, Obama launched a drone strike on a U.S. citizen.  You can't have a President wondering if they will be prosecuted for their decisions by an openly hostile future DOJ. 

Edited July 9 by Cardin Drake

[1716AU 780]

On 7/8/2024 at 11:01 AM, DKW 86 said:

Sounds random to me. I can’t recall reading anything written before. But, I am an older white guy, admittedly not as sharp as I once was. 

Nah.  You probably never left Alabama.  Those of us that leave have the shackles of ignorance drop from our eyes.  It hurts, something fierce, but is worth it.

[DKW 86 7,866]

3 minutes ago, 1716AU said:

Nah.  You probably never left Alabama.  Those of us that leave have the shackles of ignorance drop from our eyes.  It hurts, something fierce, but is worth it.

I already have a place picked out in Pasco County. If it weren't for family, I would be gone as well.

[AU9377 5,922]

On 7/8/2024 at 11:30 AM, Cardin Drake said:

The immunity decision wouldn't be controversial at all if it weren't interfering in the left's lawfare against Trump. 

Is there any law he can break and actually be held accountable for breaking?  The Court took a coward's path.  The ruling broadens immunity, while not defining an official act.  In the end, it may do little to decide future cases.

[AU9377 5,922]

On 7/9/2024 at 9:30 AM, Cardin Drake said:

I think that is true. The Justices see the absurd cases being brought against Trump, and that was the catalyst to give him and any future Presidents a large stick to defend themselves with.  But the ruling is still correct. Presidents make tough decisions every day. Heck, Obama launched a drone strike on a U.S. citizen.  You can't have a President wondering if they will be prosecuted for their decisions by an openly hostile future DOJ. 

You actually have bought into the song and dance that claims Garland is some out of control AG.  The man is as middle of the road as it comes.  You have simply been told otherwise and have considered nothing else.