╌>

JBB

JBB

A Supreme Error

  
By:  JBB  •  Opinions  •  one week ago  •  160 comments

A Supreme Error
"No Man Is Above The Law" - JBB

Have The Nuremberg Trial Rules been reversed?

If no order is illegal, following it cannot be illegal.

The idea that it is illegal to follow an illegal order no longer applies to our Presidents because no order given in an official capacity is illegal now!

The implications of this law will affect everyone.

Tags

jrBlog - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  author  JBB    one week ago

Our US Presidents can now legally order their political opponents to be poisoned of thrown off of skyscrapers, the way Putin does it, and everything is perfectly legal now because no official Presidential orders officially given are illegal anymore...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @1    one week ago
Our US Presidents can now legally order their political opponents to be poisoned of thrown off of skyscrapers, the way Putin does it, and everything is perfectly legal now because no official Presidential orders officially given are illegal anymore...

Since Joe has labeled Donald as an existential threat to democracy and you have deemed he would  not be prosecuted  do you think Joe will plan to have Trump thrown off of Trump plaza?  Would you be OK with that decision since you seem to agree with Joes assessment?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
1.1.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1    one week ago

“Would you be OK with that decision…” 

That you and too many others are comfortable in arguing about an imaginary problem says all we need to know about the current state of affairs. Please. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.1    one week ago

This whole seed and a few others on NT are nothing but getting their panties in a twist over an imaginary problem.  Care to write something that is not a diversion of the question/hypothetical asked?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
1.1.3  afrayedknot  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.2    one week ago

“…hypothetical…”

…,when you are able to address the realities of the daze instead of demanding answers to specious questions and idiotic hypotheticals, get back to me. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.3    one week ago

So nothing, got it

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.5  author  JBB  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.4    one week ago

Are we channeling Neville Chamberlain?

"Nothing to worry about. Just a Dictator".

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @1    one week ago
Our US Presidents can now legally order their political opponents to be poisoned of thrown off of skyscrapers

I don’t see the core constitutional powers of the president in that scenario, so I don’t think he’d be immune from prosecution for ordering the murder of a citizen. 

I mean, we can always say “anything is possible,” but that doesn’t make it likely. Even if a president did try something like that, we’d be in the same boat legally that we are now with Trump - debating about his immunity.

I think a lot of people are frustrated because a bad actor is not being held accountable. I share that emotion, but I also recognize the need for some level of immunity for the president. Perhaps if he is re-elected, Congress will grow a conscience and impeach him immediately.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @1.2    one week ago

There is a logical need for some level of immunity and we have survived (until now) on that basic principle sans clear definition.   It has been a non-problem.   Trump made it a problem.   Now the SCotUS has codified an invented absolute immunity for whatever might be considered core constitutional acts and an invented presumptive immunity for any official act.

This means that if a smart attorney can make a case that an egregious act (e.g. ordering the assassination of the president of Mexico to get a more cooperative head of state) was a core constitutional duty (note that this would have been made in the case of Osama Bin Laden) the PotUS would have absolute immunity from criminal charges.    To me, the SCotUS just made it easier for a PotUS to go rogue.   Trump's attorneys have shown how a high caliber legal team and a high profile client can hamstring our legal system — especially if they encounter cooperative judges (and justices).

Add in presumptive immunity.   Now they tilt the playing field for any official act by predeclaring the PotUS immune unless the prosecution can prove otherwise.   The presumption of innocence + the presumption of immunity even if guilty.

Finally, they top off their creative changes to our constitution by declaring that any evidence from an official act cannot be entered in any criminal case against the PotUS.

It is very difficult to not see this as judicial activism at a level that is well beyond my worst expectations.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.1    one week ago

That says it all right there - 'trump made it a problem'

Everything this traitor has done is unprecedented and the supreme court has given the traitor a pass, including his incited mob.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.2    one week ago

I mean, the mob he incited since he lost

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.4  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.1    6 days ago

the pardon power of POTUS is absolute. trump's gullible sycophants are willing to grant his every wish knowing that he'll pardon them...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @1.2.4    5 days ago

I suppose they 'think' he will pardon them but that clearly has not been reality.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.2.4    5 days ago

Which ones did he pardon while President?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.7  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.5    5 days ago

meh, those suckers probably couldn't afford one...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.8  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.5    4 days ago

yeah, he needs all the red meat he can get his hands on to toss at the maga morons...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.9  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.6    4 days ago
Which ones did he pardon while President?

I'd imagine each of the traitorous j6 trash is wondering why somebody that said he loved them and still had 2 weeks left in his term to pardon them, didn't back then, but talks about doing it now, after he's elected again...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.2.9    4 days ago

Gee, a whole lot of words just to NOT answer the question.

Why deflect????

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.2.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.10    3 days ago

Deflection, denial, projection are all some have

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.2.12  George  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.2.11    3 days ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.13  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.10    3 days ago

those traitors are getting caught, convicted, and imprisoned because their only value to him is rally speeches.

typical republican agenda. trump promises to fix a problem that he created, while blaming someone else...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.2.13    3 days ago

You still are deflecting instead of answering the question.

I don't wonder why.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.15  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.14    3 days ago

roger stone and steve bannon. your turn to answer my question.

here's a hint, you claim you won't be voting for him while being at the forefront of defending him.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.2.17  George  replied to  devangelical @1.2.15    3 days ago

I haven't seen Tex defending Trump. Can you point out one of his posts defending trump? You do realize criticizing the senile old fool isn't defending trump?  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.2.18  Right Down the Center  replied to  George @1.2.17    3 days ago
You do realize criticizing the senile old fool isn't defending trump?  

There seems to be several that disagree with that.  Don't know the twisted logic that gets them there but there you go.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.2.19  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  George @1.2.17    3 days ago

Deflection, projection, and denial are all some have.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.2.15    3 days ago

You don't seem to be following the conversation.

Here we were talking about the Jan 6 folks, and now you have pivoted to some other folks.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  George @1.2.17    3 days ago
Can you point out one of his posts defending trump?

Of course not, don't be ridiculous.

Every single time I get accused of that crap, I ask for a quote and have NEVER received one yet, why would THIS time be any different?

Somehow, some folks seem convinced that if you don't bash Trump 24/7 you support him, which is an idiotic thing to do.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.22  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.20    3 days ago

why are the j6 traitors in jail and who encouraged them to risk an activity that would place them there?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.2.22    3 days ago
why are the j6 traitors in jail

Well, gee, let's put on our thinking caps for a second.

Could it POSSIBLY be because they were found guilty and sentenced to jail? Think THAT may be some sort of plausible explanation of why they are in jail? Huh?

Which of them were pardoned if they are in JAIL??!!!???

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.24  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.23    3 days ago
Which of them were pardoned if they are in JAIL??!!!???

steve bannon

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1    one week ago
Our US Presidents can now legally order their political opponents to be poisoned of thrown off of skyscrapers, the way Putin does it, and everything is perfectly legal now because no official Presidential orders officially given are illegal anymore...

Well, that is one way to COMPLETELY and UTTERLY misunderstand what SCOTUS actually ruled.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2  TᵢG    one week ago

Specifically:

Any core constitutional act (even if illegal) cannot be litigated;  the PotUS has absolute immunity.

Any official act (even if illegal) can be litigated but it is presumed to be immune;   one must prove that immunity does not apply (somehow).

Any evidence from an official act cannot, under any circumstances, be used as evidence in any litigation of a former PotUS.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1  author  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @2    one week ago

Can the MAGA not see the implications of this?

Now explain how SC Justices cannot see them!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @2.1    one week ago
Can the MAGA not see the implications of this?

They are of course pleased but will argue that nothing has changed.

Of course the majority of MAGA likely have no understanding of what just took place other than 'Trump won'.

Now explain how SC Justices cannot see them!

There is no explanation because they clearly know what they are doing.   I have concluded that the SCotUS is activist.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.2  author  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.1    one week ago

As a branded "Trump Hater" are you scared of Trump getting reelected?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @2.1.2    one week ago

People who resort to labeling others as Trump haters show they have no argument other than emotion and simultaneously illustrate that they are willing to grant a vindictive, loose-cannon, narcissistic traitor the power of the presidency.

I have been quite clear that I do not care about private citizen Trump.   He is irrelevant; just another slimy scoundrel.  But I care greatly about what a PotUS Trump did and what he might do — especially with the immunity codified by the SCotUS.

Trump should never be allowed access to any power.   Biden, in contrast, and in spite of his shortcomings, can be trusted to behave like a president and not abuse the office based on personal whims.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.4  author  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    one week ago

The Nuremberg Trials reaffirmed the long understood international legal principle that, "I was only following orders" is not a criminal defense if the order itself is illegal.

If a President is immune from law and so therefore any order they issue is now automatically legal, then what?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.5  Nerm_L  replied to  JBB @2.1    one week ago
Can the MAGA not see the implications of this? Now explain how SC Justices cannot see them!

Find a copy of the ruling and replace the word 'President' with 'President Joe Biden'.  Does that allow you to feel better about the SCOTUS ruling?

Democrats may want to deny it but Joe Biden really is the President.  Trump is not the President and, as a former President, cannot order the government to do anything.  Biden can order the DOJ to do something illegal; Trump is not President and cannot do that.  Biden can order the FBI to do something illegal; Trump is not President and cannot do that.

Everyone wants to use this SCOTUS ruling to argue the dangers of reelecting Trump.  But Joe Biden is already the President and is also seeking reelection.  Did Joe Biden's debate performance convince you that Biden can handle absolute power with absolute immunity?

So why is everyone worried about a possible problem with Trump when we have a real problem now with Joe Biden?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @2.1.4    one week ago
If a President is immune from law and so therefore any order they issue is now automatically legal, then what?

Then administrative members that carryout the order may be prosecuted while the President isn't.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    one week ago

It's pathological.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.5    one week ago

Absolutely batshit crazy

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Gsquared  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.6    one week ago
Then administrative members that carryout the order may be prosecuted while the President isn't.

That is subject to question given the expansiveness of the ruling.  Even so, all the President has to do is issue a pardon and the prosecution vanishes.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.10  author  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.6    one week ago

So a President can now have you summarily executed for insubordination just for refusing to a commit murder, as long as the President officially orders you to kill someone?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2.1.10    one week ago

No, he can’t. Where do you get this from?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @2.1.10    one week ago

Beats me.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.13  author  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.11    one week ago

You mean no he could not, before Friday...

But, now he can! 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.14  author  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.12    one week ago

Then try harder and do better next time...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.15  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @2.1.14    one week ago

I’m not a lawyer.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.1.16  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @2.1.10    one week ago

Get hold of your imagination.  It is flying away

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.17  author  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.15    one week ago

So, how about being a man of honor?

Surely you do know right from wrong!

"No, and please don't call me Shirley".

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.18  author  JBB  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.16    one week ago

No, but our Constitution is disintegrating!

original

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.19  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @2.1.17    one week ago

I’ve long been against the Imperial Presidency and see this as a Court overreach.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.20  author  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.19    one week ago

Kudos! I agree! Was that really so hard?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.21  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @2.1.20    one week ago

No, I’ve written it twice before here this week.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    one week ago

All this time those on the left have been considered radical by some on the right here.

Go figure

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.23  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JBB @2.1.4    one week ago
"The Nuremberg Trials reaffirmed the long understood international legal principle that, "I was only following orders" is not a criminal defense if the order itself is illegal."
"If a President is immune from law and so therefore any order they issue is now automatically legal, then what?"

Your comment started me thinking about The Holocaust, and since Hitler's Nazi government was the legal German government in power at the time, then why was the official order from its leader, Hitler, to exterminate the Jews not a legal order that was required to be followed and those who followed an official order issued legally by the legal leader of the government should have been exempt from prosecution.  Apply that to Trump as PotUS, and according to the SCotUS HItler would have been immune and those carrying out his order would have been exempt from prosecution.  Now, isn't it a good thing that the present SCotUS was not who made the rules for the Nurenberg trials, because if they were, Eichmann and Mengele would be heroes and not criminals.   Thank you, SCotUS, for making Turmp a hero instead of the criminal he really is and was.  You will be remembered for centuries for your corruption and bias.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.24  Nerm_L  replied to  JBB @2.1.10    one week ago
So a President can now have you summarily executed for insubordination just for refusing to a commit murder, as long as the President officially orders you to kill someone?

Can a President negotiate a quid pro quo arrangement with Zelensky so the Ukrainian SBU commits the murder in exchange for aid?  Biden already has experience exerting quid pro quo influence on the Ukrainian government and that was defended as being well within Constitutional authority of the President and Vice President.

Hillary Clinton has already set the precedent that a candidate can employ a foreign spy to influence Federal government into taking legal actions against a political opponent.  Clinton did not have any immunity and did not face any repercussions for what she did.  Clinton was only required to pay a fine to the FEC for mislabeling (and hiding) payments for what she did.

Biden can certainly set conditions for distributing foreign aid.  Biden can certainly grant diplomatic immunity to foreign agents.  And Zelensky would seem to owe Biden something for all the military and monetary aid that Biden has provided.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.1.25  Gsquared  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.23    one week ago
You will be remembered for centuries for your corruption and bias.

The Supreme Court, now known as The Roberts Perversion, is no longer there to serve the people or the Constitution.  It has become the judicial organ of the Republican Authoritarian Entity.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.26  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.25    one week ago

AMERICANS!  SEIG HEIL!!!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.1.27  Gsquared  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.26    one week ago

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.28  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.27    one week ago

Is there a text version of that?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.29  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.5    one week ago
So why is everyone worried about a possible problem with Trump when we have a real problem now with Joe Biden?

That is the question of the day.

I think what just happened, (and btw, the Court chose the middle path not an extreme as those on the left allege,) is that the Court just gave all Presidents a common rule. Now a democrat and a Republican President can function without fear after they leave office. Up until now the vagueness of the law has been used to cut out Donald Trump as somehow a standalone President.

A lot of sour grapes coming from the left and I'm enjoying it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.30  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.23    one week ago

His comment got me thinking too. I had a thought on that trial similar to the ideas about the SCOTUS ruling. I realize that a nation must be completely defeated to hold such a trial, but does anyone think we will ever have such a trial again?

For example: If Iran were completely defeated by the US would there be such a trial?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.31  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.27    one week ago

lol… Richard Spencer is a Biden supporter.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.32  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.29    one week ago

and btw, the Court chose the middle path not an extreme as those on the left allege,) is that the Court just gave all Presidents a common rule

The Supreme Court (near its peak of liberalness) ruled decades ago that   a president couldn’t be sued for damages  for his  official acts as president once he leaves office.  The decision  has been widely accepted and no one has claimed those protections ended the republic, made the president a dictator etc.. 

it would be beyond bizarre to claim a president is immune from civil penalty but is subject to criminal penalties for the same acts.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.33  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.29    one week ago

President Biden, is not, and has never been the problem.  That's the traitor former 'president' and his bought and paid for 6.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.34  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.29    one week ago

No sour grapes.  Just a traitor and a traitorous supreme court and ginni and whatever alito's wife's name is.  

Nothing but revenge & retribution from traitors and their cult enablers.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.35  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.29    one week ago
I think what just happened, (and btw, the Court chose the middle path not an extreme as those on the left allege,) is that the Court just gave all Presidents a common rule. Now a democrat and a Republican President can function without fear after they leave office. Up until now the vagueness of the law has been used to cut out Donald Trump as somehow a standalone President.

IMO what causes so much heartburn on the left is that the SCOTUS decision applies the theory of originalism for determining what is and is not the official functions of the Presidency.  The Constitution and founding documents provide the criteria for differentiating between official and unofficial activities of the Presidency.  It's difficult to claim that a President engaging in purely partisan activities are official functions of the Presidency.  Taken to its logical conclusion, lack of immunity for unofficial activities will be a serious blow to Presidential partisanship.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.29    one week ago
... and btw, the Court chose the middle path not an extreme as those on the left allege ...

This is not a middle path:

  • Absolute immunity for anything considered core constitutional duty
  • Presumptive immunity for any official act.
  • Categorical exclusion of evidence from any official act not permissible in any legal case

A middle path would be to deal with the actual case and the actual circumstances and determine that Trump obviously cannot declare absolute immunity for anything he did while in office based on the CotUS.   They could have relied upon the following (but instead they contradicted it):

Article 1 §3 clause 7Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law .

A very strong hint that the framers did NOT intend for the PotUS to enjoy absolute immunity (or even presumptive immunity).  They did NOT hold that the PotUS was above the law.   And that makes perfect sense given our framers were keenly focused on designing a system that did not have the power of a monarchy such as that of King George III.

There are myriad circumstances that the justices cannot (of course) predict.   That is why we have courts ... to deal with the specific circumstances.   Here the SCotUS has categorically granted absolute immunity to anything that can be deemed a core constitutional duty.   So if a future PotUS calls for the assassination of the head of state in order to get a more cooperative replacement, the PotUS would not be legally liable for that murder.   In other words, there are indeed actions that a PotUS could take that are egregious and well beyond what we (the USA) would do, but would technically fall under 'core constitutional duties'.

This assumes the PotUS is responsible.   This is a dangerous shield since we have seen that it is possible for this nation to elect a rogue, irresponsible individual as PotUS.

Presumptive immunity ... another invention ... shields every official act of a PotUS by demanding that not only would the PotUS need to be found guilty of a crime, but the prosecution must find that the means of making the crime was not part of an official duty.   

Then on top of this all, even crimes from unofficial acts (e.g. taking bribes, rape, theft, embezzlement, ...) cannot include any evidence (which, for example, would substantiate intent) that is tied to an official duty of the PotUS.   The evidence is categorically not admissible.

This is not 'the left' (which is obviously anyone to your left) imagining an overstepping by the SCotUS.  This overstep is obvious and easily shown based on the CotUS.   A SCotUS is not supposed to create new law;  they are to interpret.   And they certainly are not to ignore clear text in the CotUS.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.1.37  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.31    one week ago
Richard Spencer is a Biden supporter.

That is neo-Nazi propaganda and complete Bullshit.   

No, White Supremacist Richard Spencer Didn’t Seriously Endorse Joe Biden

It’s time to stop falling for transparent trolling by neo-Nazis.

...

That a disingenuous racist like Spencer would pretend to support Biden in order to get attention and undercut the former vice president is not surprising. What is surprising is how many people still fall for Spencer’s transparent trolling.

In reality, Spencer and other white supremacists have a long history of purposely adopting their opponents’ causes and pretending to back them in order to undermine them. That’s exactly what Spencer did in 2018 by pretending to support “Zionism,” when he actually has a long history of hate towards both Israel and Jews, and claims that the Jewish state and its supporters control America.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.38  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.37    one week ago

All they have is lies.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.25    one week ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.40  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.28    one week ago

I guess not.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.41  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.30    one week ago

Too predictive, how would I know?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.1.42  Gsquared  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.40    one week ago

I'm only finding YouTube clips.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.43  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.35    one week ago

It will diminish the power of the executive branch.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.44  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.41    one week ago

Consider Obama & Biden's policy on Iran.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.45  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.43    one week ago
It will diminish the power of the executive branch.

My interpretation (which admittedly may be wishful) is that the SCOTUS ruling reasserts the original intent of the founders to limit the emergence of an imperial Presidency.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.46  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.45    one week ago

How, exactly, do they accomplish that with this ruling??

This ruling ignores this crystal clear text:

Article 1 §3 clause 7 — Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law .

This text states that even if a PotUS is impeached that the PotUS may still be indicted.    The SCotUS ruling put constraints on this and introduced immunities that in the case of 'core constitutional duties' makes the PotUS above the law and imposes a burden of proof of guilt AND proof of non-immunity for any indictment dealing with an official act.

Those relax the constitutional principles and give all future PotUS' categorical immunity.

Further, the SCotUS created out of whole cloth a new rule that precludes evidence drawn from any official act to be allowable in a future case.

So how, exactly, does the ruling impose more guidelines on the PotUS?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.47  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.46    one week ago
This text states that even if a PotUS is impeached that the PotUS may still be indicted.    The SCotUS ruling put constraints on this and introduced immunities that in the case of 'core constitutional duties' makes the PotUS above the law and imposes a burden of proof of guilt AND proof of non-immunity for any indictment dealing with an official act.

Doesn't an impeachment and conviction implicitly Indicate that POTUS was not engaged in an official act?

Doesn't these interpretations that this SCOTUS ruling shields a POTUS from prosecution kinda assume that 'high crimes and misdemeanors' have been enumerated as official functions of the Presidency?

Here's a couple examples of what the ruling prohibits, IMO.  A President cannot be prosecuted for a veto that causes some sort of adverse impact.  A President cannot be indicted for failing to include funding for the military in an official budget request.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.48  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.47    one week ago
Doesn't an impeachment and conviction implicitly Indicate that POTUS was not engaged in an official act?

No.   A PotUS can engage in wrongdoing as part of an official act.   A PotUS can officially call for the killing of anyone illegally crossing our border.   One would hope that such an act would result in impeachment and conviction.   One would expect that once out of office, the PotUS could be tried for murder.

Nixon was wrong when he claimed that an act by a PotUS is ipso facto legal.   Although the recent SCotUS ruling suggests that Nixon would have greatly benefited from this court.

A President cannot be prosecuted for a veto that causes some sort of adverse impact.  A President cannot be indicted for failing to include funding for the military in an official budget request.

I agree.   There are official acts that are not crimes.   That is all you just established.

But (as my opening example illustrated in the extreme) there are official acts that are indeed crimes.   Trump engaged in several.  One, for example, was his suborning of Pence to unconstitutionally table certified votes to enable his fraudulent elector scheme to ensue.   Of course, the new SCotUS ruling (to be tested) makes any discussion between Trump and Pence inadmissible in a court of law.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.49  Texan1211  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.47    one week ago

This notion that the ruling allows a President carte blanche to commit crimes is a crazy way to see it!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.50  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.48    one week ago
No.   A PotUS can engage in wrongdoing as part of an official act.   A PotUS can officially call for the killing of anyone illegally crossing our border.   One would hope that such an act would result in impeachment and conviction.   One would expect that once out of office, the PotUS could be tried for murder.

Why isn't interpretation of official acts subject to the same judicial review as questions of Presidential authority?  Questioning the Presidents authority to bypass Congress with Executive Orders has been subjected to judicial review several times.  But is issuing Executive Orders really within the official purview of the President or is this an unofficial activity of the Presidency?  A President certainly cannot be impeached or indicted for failing to write executive orders since that is not a Constitutional responsibility or requirement.  If executive orders are not official functions according to original intent then there wouldn't be any immunity for issuing an executive order to commit a crime.

Isn't the Constitution and founding documents the source of criteria for establishing the official functions, duties, responsibilities, and obligations of the Presidency?

Does Congress granting an authority to the President make the use of that authority an official responsibility of the President?  IMO eventually there will be a determination that not all Presidential authority is official.  That would mean only the authority provided by original intent will be the official authority that can provide some immunity from prosecution.  And, even then, an impeachment and conviction would be an implicitly show that the President misused official prerogative to engage in unofficial activities. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.1.51  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.49    one week ago

Just another arrow in the trump will end democracy fear mongering quiver.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.52  Nerm_L  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.49    one week ago
This notion that the ruling allows a President carte blanche to commit crimes is a crazy way to see it!

IMO this SCOTUS ruling threatens the imperial Presidency.  Barack Obama couldn't get away with everything he put in place under this ruling.  And the thing is, Obama wouldn't be immune from prosecution.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.53  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.51    one week ago

It is idiotic, dishonest, and monumentally stupid. but, hey, here we are.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.54  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.50    one week ago
Why isn't interpretation of official acts subject to the same judicial review as questions of Presidential authority? 

They are.   Any case involving a former PotUS will now have to prove that the act is not a core constitutional duty before it can be litigated.   Then if the act remains as merely an official act, the litigation must not only prove guilt, but prove that the presumption of immunity does not apply.

Further, any evidence coming from an official act is inadmissible.

Isn't the Constitution and founding documents the source of criteria for establishing the official functions, duties, responsibilities, and obligations of the Presidency?

Where in the CotUS do you find the definition of what is a core constitutional duty of the PotUS versus an official act of the PotUS?

Does Congress granting an authority to the President make the use of that authority an official responsibility of the President? 

It certainly would be an official act.   The question is if it is a core constitutional act.   I suspect not because you say it was granted by Congress rather than the CotUS.

And, even then, an impeachment and conviction would be an implicitly show that the President misused official prerogative to engage in unofficial activities. 

Sure.   But impeachment conviction simply removes the PotUS from office.   It does not establish guilt or non-guilt.   It does not deal with legal issues. 


What point are you trying to make with all of this?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.55  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.52    one week ago

Back up your claim with facts.

How does this ruling restrict an historical Obama (or any other former PotUS during their time in office)?

And keep this in mind:

Article 1 §3 clause 7 — Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law .
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.56  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.49    one week ago
This notion that the ruling allows a President carte blanche to commit crimes is a crazy way to see it!

That is not what I wrote.   A leap directly to a strawman argument.

A PotUS is still liable for impeachment and conviction ... removal from office.

But litigation after office for criminal acts while in office have been substantially curtailed by this ruling.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.57  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.56    one week ago
That is not what I wrote.   A leap directly to a strawman argument.

Yes, thanks for telling me what I already knew.

Ever think that just might be the reason my comment was not TO you?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.58  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.57    one week ago

The comment chain tells a different story.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.59  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.58    one week ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.60  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.54    one week ago
What point are you trying to make with all of this?

My understanding of the SCOTUS ruling is that only fulfilling core Constitutional authorities, responsibilities, and obligations imposed on the President at the founding of the country are official acts.  The subsequent amending of the Constitution may have also added core Constitutional official acts.  That would be consistent with Originalism.

IMO a liberal interpretation of the SCOTUS ruling would be incorrect.  Originalism rejects the idea of an imperial President so interpreting the ruling as providing immunity for imperial acts by the President would be inconsistent.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.61  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.55    one week ago
How does this ruling restrict an historical Obama (or any other former PotUS during their time in office)?

IMO the SCOTUS ruling restricts immunity to only core Constitutional authorities, responsibilities, and obligations imposed on the President at the founding of the county.  For the example of Obama, the SCOTUS ruling would not prevent or restrict Obama doing anything that he did do.  But this SCOTUS ruling would not shield everything Obama did from legal scrutiny or consequences. 

The limitations on legal immunity translates to restrictions on a President acting with impunity.  Obama could still do exactly what he did but now he might not get away with it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.62  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.60    one week ago

The SCotUS ruling defined two forms of official acts:   core constitutional and all others.   Implicitly, anything that a PotUS does that cannot be considered an unofficial act (e.g. golfing, write a personal note in a diary, ...) is an official act.

Given this, they deemed all core constitutional acts as having absolute immunity.   Period.  If it is a core constitutional act (implicitly this would be something clearly outlined in the CotUS) then the PotUS cannot under any circumstances be held legally accountable.   Impeached, yes.   But no legal accountablity.

For all other official acts, the PotUS is presumed to have immunity.   So if litigated, he or she must be found guilty AND the act must be proven to NOT be under immunity (somehow).

Further, any evidence from any official act of a PotUS cannot be admitted as evidence in any trial.   Thus even tweets could be argued as official and be inadmissible.

Originalism rejects the idea of an imperial President so interpreting the ruling as providing immunity for imperial acts by the President would be inconsistent.

Funny how you note the contradiction of the SCotUS ruling and the CotUS and present it as a reinterpretation of the ruling.

Did you read the ruling, Nerm?   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.63  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.61    one week ago
Obama could still do exactly what he did but now he might not get away with it.

How, exactly?   Prior to this ruling, every PotUS had an implied immunity of some sort for certain acts.   For example, the killing of Osama Bin Laden.   This has functioned fine for our entire history until we came across rogue PotUS Trump.

Now the SCotUS has codified absolute immunity for core constitutional and presumptive immunity for official and inadmissible evidence from any official act.

Explain how this does not provide protection for a PotUS beyond the undefined implicit immunity?    

Also you, like the SCotUS, keep ignoring this (from the CotUS):

Article 1 §3 clause 7 — Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law .

This states in clear language that even if a PotUS is impeached and convicted that the PotUS remains liable for criminal indictment.   No special qualifications, no special rules for evidence.   A clear statement of intent from the framers.   It is the principle that no man is above the law.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @2    one week ago

as far as official acts go, according to the presidential oath of office, I think biden has a lot of wiggle room...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

... but possibly a looming deadline in dealing with domestic terrorists.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @2.2    one week ago
as far as official acts go, according to the presidential oath of office, I think biden has a lot of wiggle room

Absolutely! Nobody benefits more than the guy who weaponized the DOJ and let 20 million people into the country.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.2    one week ago

6 on the not so supreme court plus ginni and that vengeful wife of alito 

and their former traitor 'president' mob cult enablers

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.2    one week ago

I consider them now to be domestic terrorists also thanks to the former 'president' weaponizing the DOJ

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.3  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2    one week ago
Specifically:

Any core constitutional act (even if illegal) cannot be litigated;  the PotUS has absolute immunity.

Any official act (even if illegal) can be litigated but it is presumed to be immune;   one must prove that immunity does not apply (somehow).

Any evidence from an official act cannot, under any circumstances, be used as evidence in any litigation of a former PotUS.

Yup, Joseph Biden can now unleash his inner Joseph Stalin.  It's a good thing Uncle Joe hasn't closed Guantanamo (the American Siberia).  Congress has already dumped their Constitutional responsibilities onto the President.  So, why doesn't the Judiciary do the same.  Uncle Joe doesn't need Congress or the courts now; he can do whatever he damned well pleases.  Or the senile old fool can give cover for his handlers autocratic wet dreams.  

Yep, the SCOTUS justices are so fucking stupid they haven't a clue what they've done.  In fact, Uncle Joe could wipe out SCOTUS with a snap of his fingers and make unrestricted abortion a free government service.  Uncle Joe only needs a secret police to perform the abortions.

If the hair-on-fire claims are true then why are we even considering reelecting a senile old fucker who doesn't know what he is doing?  The hair-on-fire claims about this SCOTUS decision has turned Joe Biden a existential threat to democracy simply because Biden fucks up everything.

Did the Presidential debate convince everyone that Joe Biden can handle absolute power with absolute immunity?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.3    one week ago
Yup, Joseph Biden can now unleash his inner Joseph Stalin. 

Biden —like every other PotUS other than Trump— will not do that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @2.3.1    one week ago

Yeah, he's not a scumbag traitor like all involved in 1/6.  

Joe Biden doesn't have an inner stalin like the former 'president' traitor and the maga cult.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.2    one week ago

Which now includes the bought and paid for not supreme 6

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.3.1    one week ago

Biden already has done it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3.4    one week ago

Nope.  Nyet.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3.4    one week ago

Feeble claims like that show you have no argument.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.3.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @2.3.1    one week ago

[]

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.4  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @2    one week ago

Reading the opinion, I can see and understand much of the reasoning behind the solution they settled on. I don’t agree with all of it (especially the bit about evidence), but I see a need for some level of presidential immunity in certain cases.

What I don’t see is law supporting their holding. It’s all just philosophy. 

Yes, they cite cases, but only a few, and those cases aren’t really grounded in the law, either. It’s theorizing based on previous theorizing. 

It strikes me that the Supreme Court is acting as if they feel compelled to try to solve all cases, even though there is no such requirement in the Constitution. Typically, they remand many cases on technical grounds or refuse many other cases, letting lower courts decide the matter. Or there’s the classic SCOTUS punt: call it a “political question” and make no other holding.

The fact is, the Constitution is silent on the matter of criminally prosecuting a former president. It just is. The Supreme Court, in my view, has no legal justification for this opinion. A philosophical justification, for sure. But not a legal one. They hang the whole thing on venerating the Separation of Powers doctrine, while ignoring the equally sacred “checks and balances.”

We now need something we never thought we’d need - a constitutional amendment defining how we deal with a rogue executive after he leaves office.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @2.4    one week ago
What I don’t see is law supporting their holding. It’s all just philosophy. 

I agree, they took a basic, accepted (albeit informal) principle that the PotUS enjoys some immunity and granted the office extra-constitutional categorical immunity.   In fact, they even contradicted constitutional text in the process such as: 

Article 1 §3 clause 7Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law .

This is more than a strong hint that the framers did NOT intend for the PotUS to enjoy absolute immunity (or even presumptive immunity).  They did NOT hold that the PotUS was above the law.   And that makes perfect sense given our framers were keenly focused on designing a system that did not have the power of a monarchy such as that of King George III.

It strikes me that the Supreme Court is acting as if they feel compelled to try to solve all cases, even though there is no such requirement in the Constitution. 

I agree, I have encapsulated that notion with the word categorical in my many comments on this topic.   It seems to me that they crafted this specifically for Trump, which adds to my great disappointment with this court.   All they really needed do was state that no PotUS has absolute immunity (per the CotUS) and leave the courts to try the specifics of the case.  

We now need something we never thought we’d need - a constitutional amendment defining how we deal with a rogue executive after he leaves office.

Or a future SCotUS that is willing to pull back this overstepping of the current SCotUS.

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
2.4.2  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.1    one week ago
I agree, I have encapsulated that notion with the word categorical in my many comments on this topic.   It seems to me that they crafted this specifically for Trump, which adds to my great disappointment with this court.   All they really needed do was state that no PotUS has absolute immunity (per the CotUS) and leave the courts to try the specifics of the case.  

It seems like by trying to lay out a standard for the ages that is above reproach and litigation they have done just the opposite, not just in this specific case but some of the other recent decisions. I disagree with the majority.

The question that hovers over this is, "What next?" This iteration of the SCotUS seems to be reactionary and not above removing rights from many more citizens in the name of money and power. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.4.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @2.4    one week ago

It strikes me that the Supreme Court is acting as if they feel compelled to try to solve all cases, even though there is no such requirement in the Constitution. Typically, they remand many cases on technical grounds or refuse many other cases, letting lower courts decide the matter.

it is literally their job to create rules that govern broad classes of cases, not simply issues case specific rulings.  That’s what trial courts do. 

and of course, they did remand this case to the trial court to  make case specific rulings and decide the matter.  Defining the broad outlines of the constitutional standard and then remanding to the lower courts to apply those this standards to the particular case before them is a textbook example of how the court should operate.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.4.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.4.3    one week ago
example of how the court should operate.

You mean there are no different rules when Trump is involved?   The "Get Trump at all costs" group will be very sad to hear that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.5  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.4.3    one week ago
it is literally their job to create rules that govern broad classes of cases, not simply issues case specific rulings.

It is NOT their job to contradict the CotUS or invent new constitutional constructs.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3  afrayedknot    one week ago

“Specifically:…”

Frighteningly. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1  author  JBB  replied to  afrayedknot @3    one week ago

Horrifyingly!

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.1.1  afrayedknot  replied to  JBB @3.1    one week ago

Inexplicably.

Words do little to explain away just how dangerous this virus. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
4  Igknorantzruls    one week ago

Well, if this is the case, maybe Biden should have the ole Seal Team 666, nix another 6 of those rightfully proven not so Supreme, and then trump a few more for good measure, cause now about EVERYONE must serve at the pleasure of the anointed won who would be king, or queen, cause this has gone darn extreme, and to head it off at the pass, i say Biden rushes right up the gut, have the boyz make a nice clean cut, and call it a good day in the cause to restore the American way, the way where we truly do make America great again, cause it is obvious the Supreme's and 45 don't care if democracy remains alive, and too many truly great Americans have given life limb and treasure, to not go the extra mile and see it does survive, and even thrive, cause about sick up and Fed with all the 45 jive that continues to swat the hornets' nest, and best, if just this mess, be run down the hall, cause he can't be held liable, as he is a forgetful old man with FULL IMMUNITY, 

What the Hell could go WRONG /?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @4    one week ago

So, because Democrats didn't get to appoint "enough" members of SCOTUS, the fallback position is murder and mayhem.

What a thing for Democrats everywhere to rejoice over!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    one week ago
because Democrats didn't get to appoint "enough" members of SCOTUS, the fallback position is murder and mayhem

you seem to be confusing democrats with the heritage foundation, a thumper think tank ...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.1.1    one week ago
you seem to be confusing democrats with the heritage foundation, a thumper think tank ...

Not to folks who actually read my posts.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.2    one week ago

that's a short list...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.1.3    one week ago

Clear from reading some of the "responses" offered up, quite clear!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @4.1.3    one week ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.5    one week ago

go figure, huh?

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
5  Hallux    one week ago

Of late republicans are adopting everything democrats have ever done wrong and rubber-stamping them as their own. America has sold out to topsy-turvy, tongue-twisting, trashy-totalitarianism. To make matters worse, Canada wants a her place in the more-please-ditch.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @5    2 days ago

the odds are tilted in your favor by assuming that most of the republican claims are complete bullshit...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.1  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @5.1    yesterday

whatever maga claims, the opposite is most probably way closer to the truth...

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6  Hal A. Lujah    one week ago

[]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1  devangelical  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6    one week ago

[]

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  devangelical @6.1    one week ago

[]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6    one week ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.3  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6    one week ago

[] Calling on Biden to commit murder or order murder is just crazy talk.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6.3.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3    one week ago

Calling on Biden to commit murder or order murder is just crazy talk.

Calling on a President Trump to commit murder or order murder is just everyday conversation for Trump supporters.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.3.1    one week ago

That is an ignorant comment, lacking in truth.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
6.3.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.3.1    one week ago

It seems Biden supporters are the only ones talking about assassination and lying about what the Supreme court said.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.3.3    one week ago

Very true!

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6.3.5  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.2    one week ago

[deleted] [] Trump himself talks about executing those Americans he falsely labels “traitors”. You know this.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.3.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.3.5    one week ago
Trump himself talks about executing those Americans he falsely labels “traitors”. You know this.

Don't "know it".  Provide a link.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6.3.7  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.3.6    one week ago

Here’s how google works:  type “Trump calls for execution” into the search bar and hit enter.  It’s not hard.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.4  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6    one week ago
Maybe Biden should now order the assassination of every corrupt Supreme Court Justice and replace them with reasonable, thoughtful human beings.

If the comment was meant to be funny, it failed 

If the comment was serious, it is an extremely ignorant post.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6.4.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @6.4    one week ago

True or false:  Trump has called for the execution of those Americans he calls “traitors”.

True or false:  The conservative side of the US Supreme Court is all in on Donald Trump.

The writing is on the wall.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.4.2  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.4.1    one week ago

What, exactly, does Trump have to do with a few idiots thinking SCOTUS' ruling allows for the murder of Americans?

Look, I understand the need to vent endlessly about Trump, but there are Trump articles here and thus isn't one of them.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
6.4.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.4.1    one week ago

What writing is on what wall?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
6.4.4  afrayedknot  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.4.3    one week ago

For the illiterate the only concern is about the Wall…figuratively and metaphorically. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
6.4.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @6.4.4    one week ago

Exactly, the rest of us are also concerned about:

  • Long term debt
  • Sustainability of entitlement programs 
  • International intervention 
  • Interest rates
  • Housing shortages 
  • Growth of federal power to include the imperial presidency 
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.4.6  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.4.5    one week ago

Apparently not a concern for some.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
6.4.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  afrayedknot @6.4.4    one week ago

Well that certainly cleared things up.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
6.4.8  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @6.4.6    one week ago

For some the concerns are:

  • Trump
  • Trump
  • Trump
  • Trump
  • Trump
  • Trump
 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
6.4.9  afrayedknot  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.4.8    one week ago

“For some the concerns are:…”

You could repeat that list ad Infinitum and still not address all the concerns this aberration could wreak on our country. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6.5  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6    one week ago

[removed][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.5.1  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.5    one week ago

Most people just know that a President cannot murder an American or order a murder.

Some would never dream of asking something silly like that.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
7  Jeremy Retired in NC    one week ago

Two of the minority twits on the SCOTS (and the rest on the left) doesn't understand what the ruling actually is and how it is applied is pathetic.  

In their dissents, both Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder -- including ordering the assassination of a political rival.

How stupid does one have to be to even remotely think that would be a viable, legal option outside of Venezuela, Russia or N. Korea?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7    one week ago

I would like to say no one could actually be stupid enough to believe it but can't honestly.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    one week ago

The comments here show that one can be that stupid.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
7.1.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.1    one week ago

lol, like 6.3.6.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.2    one week ago

And your response (6.3.7), basically says, you can't provide a link.  Nice talking point.  Too bad, like most of the lefts talking points, the only place they are factual is in your imagination.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
7.1.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.3    one week ago

It says I won’t do what you are too feeble to do yourself.  Grow a pair.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
7.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.4    one week ago

It says I won’t do what you are too feeble to do yourself.

You made the claim.  I call you on it.  Your comment says you can't back up your claim.  Just running with your fictional nonsense.

Grow a pair.

And the personal attack solidifies the fact you don't have a goddamn thing.  Wish I could say it surprises me but...