235 Years

[Marener]

You loved the Court when it was a political branch for YOU. That was YOUR game and YOUR rules, and it was fine.

Now we're playing your game by your rules. You hate it. Too bad. We used to play nice and do not anymore. Oh well.

How was the court a “political branch” for us?

 

[Rawley]

George Washington's first term began in 1789. Since then, 235 years, no President has asked for absolute immunity, much less received it.

I wonder why it's needed, so badly, now.

Let me guess: It involves victimhood.

235 years and no citizen has ever been criminally prosecuted simultaneously in four separate jurisdictions.

Even a Bidenfluffer such as yourself can understand that math.

 

[JLW]

It is amazing how Brazil stood up to those that sought to bring down its republic and its courts reigned in the power of the presidency, while in the US, the home of the longest surviving Republic, we have a great portion of the population that seeks to bring down its democratic institutions abetted by a compliant Supreme Court.

The Roman Republic fell under similar circumstances when a great portion of the population just gave up on it and sought a strong man. History repeats itself.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There is a poster I really used to get after here bc her ideas were atrocious and wildly inconsistent. Then I found out she suffers from a degenerative neurological condition and never commented again. It was clear that she didn't have clear thinking anymore.

I begin to wonder if that's the case for Mac. I'm being serious. Just not clear thinking at all.

Mac did have some very good cognitive skills and logical deduction. He's consumed by orange man now.

 

[martybegan]

It is amazing how Brazil stood up to those that sought to bring down its republic and its courts reigned in the power of the presidency, while in the US, the home of the longest surviving Republic, we have a great portion of the population that seeks to bring down its democratic institutions abetted by a compliant Supreme Court.
The Roman Republic fell under similar circumstances when a great portion of the population just gave up on it and sought a strong man. History repeats itself.

And yet an unfettered and unaccountable executive bureaucracy that can set its own rules based on vague laws is somehow a "democratic institution"?

 

[SweetSue92]

How was the court a “political branch” for us?

Please, you did not beg Ruth Bader Ginsburg not to die? What are you even talking about?

 

[Marener]

Please, you did not beg Ruth Bader Ginsburg not to die? What are you even talking about?

Because we knew she would be replaced with a terrible choice. We were right.

 

[JLW]

And yet an unfettered and unaccountable executive bureaucracy that can set its own rules based on vague laws is somehow a "democratic institution"?

“Democratic institutions” does not mean bureaucracies, but the guard rails that keep our representative republic functioning, such as our system of checks and balances, the courts, our guiding principles. All are being trashed.

 

[rampart]

it’s hard for Progressives to understand that a President DOES NOT ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

Any President who committed high crimes (killing his political opponents, taking bribes from Ukraine) can be convicted and removed from Office

Unfortunately, democrats are physically incapable of holding their leadership to account.

Don’t believe me? Look at the Mayorkas impeachment

no impeachment can succeed in the senate until trump47 is finished purging "terrorists communists, democrats and athiests" from the senate. the founders must have known that this was a dog without teeth.
\\
franken, weiner, cuomo etc etc etc have been held accountable. by democrats. the nj senator is being prosecuted. who the hell have republicans ever held accountable?

mayorkas was impeached for following the law that dear leader refuses to allow changed.

 

[martybegan]

“Democratic institutions” does not mean bureaucracies, but the guard rails that keep our representative republic functioning, such as our system of checks and balances, the courts, our guiding principles. All are being trashed.

The Courts just ruled FOR checks and balances you fucking moron.

 

[martybegan]

no impeachment can succeed in the senate until trump47 is finished purging "terrorists communists, democrats and athiests" from the senate. the founders must have known that this was a dog without teeth.
\\
franken, weiner, cuomo etc etc etc have been held accountable. by democrats. the nj senator is being prosecuted. who the hell have republicans ever held accountable?

mayorkas was impeached for following the law that dear leader refuses to allow changed.

Is the NJ senator still holding his seat?

 

[CrazyTrader55]

no impeachment can succeed in the senate until trump47 is finished purging "terrorists communists, democrats and athiests" from the senate. the founders must have known that this was a dog without teeth.
\\
franken, weiner, cuomo etc etc etc have been held accountable. by democrats. the nj senator is being prosecuted. who the hell have republicans ever held accountable?

mayorkas was impeached for following the law that dear leader refuses to allow changed.

I'm not sure what you said here but I feel like I wasted 30 seconds of my life reading it.

Mayorkas is a traitor.

 

[JLW]

The Courts just ruled FOR checks and balances you fucking moron.

Look at Marty again losing his shit again because he is apparently going through menopause. Wrong again, the Supreme Court threw checks and balances in the trash with its latest decision. The presidency has no checks when it comes to official acts.

 

[martybegan]

Look at Marty again losing his shit again because he is apparently going through menopause. Wrong again, the Supreme Court threw checks and balances in the trash with its latest decision. The presidency has no checks when it comes to official acts.

It's called impeachment. It has been the check since the Country was founded.

Also, you mad bro?

 

[JLW]

It's called impeachment. It has been the check since the Country was founded.

Also, you mad bro?

Lol.. Just like you that you can’t think straight when you lose your shit.

SCOTUS ruled that the president was effectively above the law when it comes to official acts.

 

[martybegan]

Lol.. Just like you that you can’t think straight when you lose your shit.

SCOTUS ruled that the president was effectively above the law when it comes to official acts.

The law covers him via the impeachment process.

Do you really want a President sued every time he pops some terrorist asshole with a Tomahawk, or signs off on a federal execution of a convicted murderer?

What about sued civilly bet PETA when he pardons one Turkey but serves 50 others at the White house Thanksgiving dinner?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

You never prove a darn thing Mac. You sigh and fall on the fainting couch crying about Trumpsters, cults and Orange Man Bad.

Magaturds are the worst. That is all.

 

[JLW]

The law covers him via the impeachment process.

Do you really want a President sued every time he pops some terrorist asshole with a Tomahawk, or signs off on a federal execution of a convicted murderer?

What about sued civilly bet PETA when he pardons one Turkey but serves 50 others at the White house Thanksgiving dinner?

Nobody has ever said that a president who engages in matters of foreign policy or is merely following the law is personally or criminally liable. That is a red herring argument. The question is when the president flagrantly violates the law when he is ostensibly engaged in “official acts” is he immune from prosecution. SCOTUS says yes

 

[martybegan]

Nobody has ever said that a president who engages in matters of foreign policy or is merely following the law is personally or criminally liable. That is a red herring argument. The question is when the president flagrantly violates the law when he is ostensibly engaged in “official acts” is he immune from prosecution. SCOTUS says yes

No, the SCOUTS said the lower courts have to figure out if he was doing an official act or something else.

That's all the SCOTUS said, and gave them guidance to figure it out.

What laws did he supposedly violate?

 

[JLW]

No, the SCOUTS said the lower courts have to figure out if he was doing an official act or something else.

That's all the SCOTUS said, and gave them guidance to figure it out.

What laws did he supposedly violate?

Yeah, the standard enunciated by the majority is simply that if the president talked about it with some of his officials it is an “official act.” The courts have been effectively castrated in holding a president accountable for his illegal acts. BTW it is not just Biden or Trump, but any future president.