BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Trump is entitled to some immunity in Jan. 6 case

[Rawley]

it cannot be twisted into an "official action"

So, he's not above the law. SO why do you guys keep hysterically claiming he is?

Not my cult as I have as well. But now that is out the window.

It is your cult, you've adopted their hysterical documents.

So, again...what is the keep a POTUS from doing so closer to home?

THe law. IMHO there was a good case Obama could have been prosecuted before and after this immunity decision,

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, he's not above the law. SO why do you guys keep hysterically claiming he is?

Just his "official actions" are, which they should not be.

It is your cult, you've adopted their hysterical documents.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

THe law.

The law is that he is immune due to it being done as an "official action".

IMHO there was a good case Obama could have been prosecuted before and after this immunity decision,

The SCOTUS does not agree with you.

 

[Rawley]

Nor do I care about Biden but why would a candidate for the Supreme Court feel it appropriate to lie about their opinion?

They didn't lie. The Court explicitly held the President is not above the law. Your cult and it's leader are the ones lying to you

 

[Rawley]

Just his "official actions" are, which they should not be.



Whatever helps you sleep at night.



The law is that he is immune due to it being done as an "official action".



The SCOTUS does not agree with you.

Yes they do.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes they do.

Again, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Nobody even bothered to go after Obama before this ruling, any chance to do so is now gone.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They didn't lie. The Court explicitly held the President is not above the law. Your cult and it's leader are the ones lying to you

The POTUS is not, just his official actions.

A distinction without a real difference

 

[struth]

it cannot be twisted into an "official action"



Not my cult as I have as well. But now that is out the window.

So, again...what is the keep a POTUS from doing so closer to home?

so when you all were claiming the President was a King after this ruling that was BS?

 

[Rawley]

Again, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Sorry that the hysterical agiprop from your cult is keeping you up at night. Perhaps you should stop listening to them

Nobody even bothered to go after Obama before this ruling, any chance to do so is now gone.

Because, before your cult, no one thought criminally prosecuting former Presidents was ever warranted, even for murder.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Because, before your cult, no one thought criminally prosecuting former Presidents was ever warranted, even for murder.

So, the Dems started to do the right thing for a change and SCOTUS said "none of that shit".

And people like you think it is a good thing because it saves your cult leader.

Well, it is said we get the Govt we deserve and I guess it is true.

Have a great day, seems we have beat this horse to death.

 

[pknopp]

Sorry that the hysterical agiprop from your cult is keeping you up at night. Perhaps you should stop listening to them

Because, before your cult, no one thought criminally prosecuting former Presidents was ever warranted, even for murder.

Not true. I long argued that Obama should had been charged for killing an American citizen.

 

[Rawley]

Nope, you're cult's lawfare is absurd and incredibly damaging to the country.

And people like you think it is a good thing because it saves your cult leader.

Well, it is said we get the Govt we deserve and I guess it is true.

Have a great day, seems we have beat this horse to death.

Have a blessed day

 

[PeterPilot]

I have to note the hypocrisy. The court over ruled RvW because they said no such protection exists in the Constitution.

Now they rule a president has certain protections despite there being nothing about that in the Constitution.

To be clear, R v. W was overturned because it was improperly argued. Had Wade been decided based upon the Ninth Amendment, it might still be with us. As I recall, RvW was argued as a due process matter, which it was not.

This decision basically says POTUS is entitled to the same protections from prosecution as Members Of Congress are, good reasoning IMO

 

[pknopp]

To be clear, R v. W was overturned because it was improperly argued. Had Wade been decided based upon the Ninth Amendment, it might still be with us. As I recall, RvW was argued as a due process matter, which it was not.

It was argued on privacy.

This decision basically says POTUS is entitled to the same protections from prosecution as Members Of Congress are, good reasoning IMO

Wow, so you see Congress being above our laws also. A bad ruling seems to get worse by the day.