235 Years

[SweetSue92]

so you only want packed demofks? ahhhhhh you want control!!!!!! ewwwwwww bugs the fk out of you huh? Democracy fking can't be tolerated right?

When they win, it's Constitutional and just

When we win, it's a "threat to democracy"

When do you think they will realize this isn't working anymore?

 

[Marener]

Murder is a crime.

Barack Obama had Osama bin Laden murdered.

Did you intend to elect a president who commits crimes?

The president is commander in chief and was authorized to use military force against Al Qaeda. It is insane to think such an action could ever be considered a crime.

 

[jc456]

What demofks want

 

[Mac1958]

Mac1958 why the crickets?

Because I addressed it in the OP. Victimhood.

If you don't like that, too bad.

 

[jc456]

When they win, it's Constitutional and just

When we win, it's a "threat to democracy"

When do you think they will realize this isn't working anymore?

they have no brain, so never.

 

[jc456]

Because I addressed it in the OP. Victimhood.

If you don't like that, too bad.

that wasn't your post

 

[Billiejeens]

Here is a nice little accurate and informative recap of the ruling.
I realize that Leftists will never accept it, like much of reality.
The first line illuminates why the lunatics are so fucking pissed off.


Supreme Court delivers massive blow to Trump special prosecutor with immunity decision . . . The high court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that certain official acts by presidents are not prosecutable at all, while other official acts require the government to meet high criteria before it can criminally charge a president for them. The ruling was a massive blow to Jack Smith’s case, which could look like a shell of its former self once the lower courts have sifted through it to align it with the Supreme Court’s guidance. The high court’s majority divided presidential acts into three categories: official acts that are absolutely immune from prosecution, official acts that are presumptively immune from prosecution until the government can prove the prosecution would not threaten the authority of the executive branch, and unofficial acts, which can always be prosecuted.

 

[SweetSue92]

The president is commander in chief and was authorized to use military force against Al Qaeda. It is insane to think such an action could ever be considered a crime.

These are the lines of your argument though. Obama did this, no problem. You realize if the Court had decided "no immunity" then Republicans could sue Obama for this...and everything a Dem president does in the future?

Why do you all never look ahead?

 

[jc456]

These are the lines of your argument though. Obama did this, no problem. You realize if the Court had decided "no immunity" then Republicans could sue Obama for this...and everything a Dem president does in the future?

Why do you all never look ahead?

again, they have no brain.

 

[Marener]

These are the lines of your argument though. Obama did this, no problem. You realize if the Court had decided "no immunity" then Republicans could sue Obama for this...and everything a Dem president does in the future?

Why do you all never look ahead?

I have no idea how you think that Republicans could "sue" over the death of OBL. It makes absolutely zero sense from any rational approach. First, they have no standing. Second, the president is already immune from civil lawsuits. Third, just why?

You see, we never thought the president needs immunity because we always expected the president to behave lawfully and consider the legality of their actions. Apparently, that's a bad thing if you're a conservative.

 

[Rawley]

Because I addressed it in the OP. Victimhood.

If you don't like that, too bad.

Don’t really care that you eschew rational debate in favor of propaganda in service of your masters.

 

[SweetSue92]

I have no idea how you think that Republicans could "sue" over the death of OBL. It makes absolutely zero sense from any rational approach. First, they have no standing. Second, the president is already immune from civil lawsuits. Third, just why?

You see, we never thought the president needs immunity because we always expected the president to behave lawfully and consider the legality of their actions. Apparently, that's a bad thing if you're a conservative.

Killing someone is not a civil lawsuit. And yes if you got your way, we could bring charges for anything. Like you did. Just like that.

 

[Billiejeens]

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the one of the final cases the court heard this term. Roberts was joined by the court’s five other conservative justices, while the three liberal justices dissented.

The Supreme Court did not say Trump has immunity in this specific case, in which the federal government has accused the former president of trying to overturn the 2020 election through his actions on Jan. 6, 2021.

“Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, adding, “The text of the [Impeachment Judgment] Clause provides little support for such an absolute immunity.”

Instead, the court remanded the case back down to the lower courts, which will now have to determine whether Trump’s actions constituted “official acts.”

 

[SweetSue92]

I have no idea how you think that Republicans could "sue" over the death of OBL. It makes absolutely zero sense from any rational approach. First, they have no standing. Second, the president is already immune from civil lawsuits. Third, just why?

You see, we never thought the president needs immunity because we always expected the president to behave lawfully and consider the legality of their actions. Apparently, that's a bad thing if you're a conservative.

oh I see where you got it from; my bad. I was talking criminal charges, not lawsuits for civil charges. Murder is a criminal offense.

 

[Billiejeens]

I have no idea how you think that Republicans could "sue" over the death of OBL. It makes absolutely zero sense from any rational approach. First, they have no standing. Second, the president is already immune from civil lawsuits. Third, just why?

You see, we never thought the president needs immunity because we always expected the president to behave lawfully and consider the legality of their actions. Apparently, that's a bad thing if you're a conservative.

Your concept of reality borders on insanity.

 

[SweetSue92]

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the one of the final cases the court heard this term. Roberts was joined by the court’s five other conservative justices, while the three liberal justices dissented.

The Supreme Court did not say Trump has immunity in this specific case, in which the federal government has accused the former president of trying to overturn the 2020 election through his actions on Jan. 6, 2021.

“Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, adding, “The text of the [Impeachment Judgment] Clause provides little support for such an absolute immunity.”

Instead, the court remanded the case back down to the lower courts, which will now have to determine whether Trump’s actions constituted “official acts.”

It's reasonable of course, but of course, the Left is not reasonable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It started to unravel when the GOP packed the court with right wing politicians.

True – packed the Court with blind partisan conservative ideologues.

 

[Billiejeens]

True – packed the Court with blind partisan conservative ideologues.

Of course,

It was much better when it was packed with blind partisan left-wing ideologues.

 

[my2¢]

The audacity of claiming blanket immunity is beyond belief but the Democrats can't be completely absolved in their role of forcing this matter. In their conflict with Trump they've been tossing everything remotely questionable against the wall to see what sticks. I thought the court's ruling was reasonable and will limit such political nonsense in the future.

 

[Billiejeens]

The audacity of claiming blanket immunity is beyond belief but the Democrats can't be completely absolved in their role of forcing this matter. In their conflict with Trump they've been tossing everything remotely questionable against the wall to see what sticks. I thought the court's ruling was reasonable and will limit such political nonsense in the future.

While not really materially changing anything.