Are the Conservative USSC Justices Not Looking to the Future... or are They?

[elektra]

Such a victim.

Disagreeing is not going to be allowed by conservatives.
That's all I did

More bullying, after you claimed victim status.

 

[Mac-7]

You can say anything you want. it doesn’t make it true.

Back at you

Your side has the advantage of the mail-in ballot scam so you can afford to be smug

But widespread cheating on the left only invites the other side to cheat also

Nothing good can come out of this

 

[Marener]

Back at you

Your side has the advantage of the mail-in ballot scam so you can afford to be smug

But widespread cheating on the left only invites the other side to cheat also

Nothing good can come out of this

The cheating which you guys tried to prove for years and came up with nothing.

This is all just based on what you “believe” happened. Pure faith.

Do we decide the outcome of elections based on what people like you “believe” the result should be?

Of course not. Doing so would violate the rights of millions of Americans.

 

[BlindBoo]

I think cheating did exist, and will be used again in the 2024 election

Cheating always exists. Both sides get caught at it all the time. A multi-state fraud that alters the national outcome didn't. 2020 was one of the most watched election in history. Commentary claiming fraud over silent videos by partisan pundants is not evidence of fraud or cheating.

 

[cnm]

Are you saying they don’t have a case or controversy in front of them to rule on?

I'm saying the conservative Justices are avoiding the case like the plague - unlike the way their own witterings guide - while they invent abstact hypotheses. In fact, they refuse to consider the case itself.

What Originalism...

 

[BlindBoo]

The Hack court claimed lofty platitudes like 'decision for the ages'. However they themselves proved that their (the SC) decisions are transient by overturning long standing precedents established decades ago. All it will take is a couple of new liberal justices.

Vote em out at every level, ladies. Take precedent in your votes. It's up to you.

 

[struth]

I'm saying the conservative Justices are avoiding the case like the plague - unlike the way their own witterings guide - while they invent abstact hypotheses. In fact, they refuse to consider the case itself.

What Originalism...

How are they avoiding it? They are literally hearing it?

What about orginaliam?

 

[Lesh]

The argument isn’t about blanket immunity. Presidential immunity deals with immunity of prosecution from official acts

The reality is this never had to be litigated because it was always just assumed and we never had demafasict prosecuting their political rivals

But where is the line between official and unofficial acts?

Certainly election interference is not an official act.

True?

 

[struth]

But where is the line between official and unofficial acts?

Certainly election interference is not an official act.

True?

A president acting on and asking his doj to investigate election interference, claims of voter fraud is certainly an official act.

 

[Lesh]

as I have written before in this space, this is a simple case, and we know how it will turn out. When the President is acting as President, he has absolute immunity. When he is acting as a private citizen, he has no immunity, but cannot be prosecuted while he is in office.

In close cases of whether he is acting as President or private citizen, it is up to the fact-finder (judge or jury) to make that call.

This case will be kicked back to the trial court.

It is incredible how much time, money, and words are being wasted analyzing this case. It is simple and we know how it will end.

This is why I was not a great law school student. I just came to the right conclusion and didn't fill Blue Books with pointless speculation.

And as far as official acts… if a President were to order troops to kill prisoners during a conflict. Would that not be an official act (as opposed to a personal act divorced from government)?

And would it not be also a crime?

 

[struth]

And as far as official acts… if a President were to order troops to kill prisoners during a conflict. Would that not be an official act (as opposed to a personal act divorced from government)?

And would it not be also a crime?

He would be immune, just like Obama was when he ordered the extrajudicial murder of Americans

Or are you saying he should be charged?

 

[Lesh]

A president acting on and asking his doj to investigate election interference, claims of voter fraud is certainly an official act.

But that same President upon being told by his DOJ that there was no election interference who then calls up individual state’s election officials and pressures them to change vote tallies???

 

[Lesh]

He would be immune, just like Obama was when he ordered the extrajudicial murder of Americans

Or are you saying he should be charged?

Yes. If killing a terrorist is ruled illegal then he should face consequences.

You disagree?

 

[struth]

But that same President upon being told by his DOJ that there was no election interference who then calls up individual state’s election officials and pressures them to change vote tallies???

Hahah he never did that.


But he can certainly call state offficials if he wanted

 

[BlindBoo]

A president acting on and asking his doj to investigate election interference, claims of voter fraud is certainly an official act.

The DOJ should investigate the facts but not at the presidents order to do so.

Disputing President Donald Trump’s persistent, baseless claims, Attorney General William Barr declared Tuesday the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.

Disputing Trump, Barr says no widespread election fraud

WASHINGTON (AP) — Disputing President Donald Trump’s persistent, baseless claims, Attorney General William Barr declared Tuesday the U.S.

apnews.com

 

[struth]

Yes. If killing a terrorist is ruled illegal then he should face consequences.

You disagree?

Yes I disagree

Of course murder is illegal for anyone else

 

[struth]

The DOJ should investigate the facts but not at the presidents order to do so.

Disputing President Donald Trump’s persistent, baseless claims, Attorney General William Barr declared Tuesday the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.

Disputing Trump, Barr says no widespread election fraud

WASHINGTON (AP) — Disputing President Donald Trump’s persistent, baseless claims, Attorney General William Barr declared Tuesday the U.S.

apnews.com

Why not? They work for him

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes I disagree

Of course murder is illegal for anyone else

Failure to protect the country from a traitor turned Al Qaeda operative with selective knowledge of our country would have been a dereliction of his constitutional duty.

 

[struth]

Failure to protect the country from a traitor turned Al Qaeda operative with selective knowledge of our country would have been a dereliction of his constitutional duty.

When was he convict of being a traitor? Did He not have due process rights? Why is the president allowed to make that determination on his own?

I have no issue with Obama being immune from prosecution for that extrajudicial killing

 

[BlindBoo]

Why not? They work for him

They work for the USA and are not a revenge squad for the executive. Also because it should result in another Saturday night massacre.

What Was the Saturday Night Massacre? | HISTORY

An attack by President Nixon on his own Justice Department came with grave consequences.

www.history.com