Lib Fran Leibowitz suggests Biden “dissolve” the SCOTUS

[Crepitus]

didn't you say antisemitic?

You need some help with the reading comprehension?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Nuthin’ Intelligent ^ seems to stupidly and ignorantly assume that disagreement with him (or her or whatever it is) means the opponent is wrong.

The Trump cult ALWAYS are WRONG.

Of course I support Trump. The real question is how and why any of you libturd numbnuts could possibly support Kamalalala last minute substitute Harris.

If a rock were a substitute, It beats voting for a retarded nut job like Trump.

 

[BackAgain]

The Trump cult ALWAYS are WRONG.

Supporters of Trump aren’t the ones in a cult. That would be you libturds.

“We want Kamala because she is the CHOSEN one”. Literally. Just not chosen by the Democrat voters.

If a rock were a substitute, It beats voting for a retarded nut job like Trump.

And that’s what you plan to do. Vote for a rock.

 

[jc456]

You need some help with the reading comprehension?

I have the word correct, and you posted it right?

 

[jc456]

its facetious.
Its to convey the absurdity of presidential immunity.

yet it has always been there. amazing shit there huh?

 

[jc456]

Supporters of Trump aren’t the ones in a cult. That would be you libturds.

“We want Kamala because she is the CHOSEN one”. Literally. Just not chosen by the Democrat voters.

And that’s what you plan to do. Vote for a rock.

tell him he's in a cult so he can deny he's in a cult which will prove he is in a cult. Holy shit, that sounds like a scamala speech!

 

[Crepitus]

I have the word correct, and you posted it right?

Lol, sure kid, sure.

 

[jc456]

Lol, sure kid, sure.

View attachment 1020496

yes you are senile.

 

[Crepitus]

yes you are senile.

 

[jc456]

View attachment 1020508

There you go

 

[dudmuck]

yet it has always been there. amazing shit there huh?

for civil suits yes, but immunity wasnt there for criminal violations.

 

[AntonToo]

Lib Fran Leibowitz suggests Biden “dissolve” the SCOTUS​

He is not disolving anything.

[/pointless thread]

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What a stupid thread, Biden can't dissolve SCOTUS.

Seriously people

 

[jc456]

for civil suits yes, but immunity wasnt there for criminal violations.

Always been there

 

[BULLDOG]

Made it to Post 9 before a Dimtard moron bleats ORANGE MAN BAD!

Gotta be a record.

As a matter of fact, the orange man is bad.

 

[para bellum]

Look guys. You are being ridiculous. Donald Trump filed in court that he possesses absolute immunity. Fran simply made a mockery of his filing by saying the president has immunity so he should just disband the court. She made a comment on a show. He filed a motion that his theft conviction was immune from prosecution. That last sentence I typed is indisputable.

What theft conviction? Trump has not been convicted of theft.

That is exactly what Trump said they ruled in this filing.

The Petition for Cert was filed before the SCOTUS decision, geez.

 

[BackAgain]

He is not disolving anything.

[/pointless thread]

No shit, asshole. The point of the thread is not that Potato is even contemplating her advice.

The point is that he couldn’t even if he wanted to.

Fran is a moron.

 

[struth]

The argument can be made considering recent scotus ruling on immunity for "official acts".
Of course its absurd, and Fran is absurd, but you can see where this goes with this scotus ruling.

No I don’t…explain why you think the scotus should be destroyed because they understand the concept we have had in this country since it’s founding?

 

[dudmuck]

No I don’t…explain why you think the scotus should be destroyed because they understand the concept we have had in this country since it’s founding?

The Constitution doesn't directly discuss presidential immunity from criminal or civil lawsuits. Instead, the privilege has developed over time through the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article II.

The term "presidential immunity" can be somewhat misleading. It does not mean a president is totally immune from civil or criminal liability. Instead, it refers to a longstanding tradition that a president who acts within their authority is generally immune from lawsuits based on it.

 

[jc456]

The Constitution doesn't directly discuss presidential immunity from criminal or civil lawsuits. Instead, the privilege has developed over time through the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article II.

The term "presidential immunity" can be somewhat misleading. It does not mean a president is totally immune from civil or criminal liability. Instead, it refers to a longstanding tradition that a president who acts within their authority is generally immune from lawsuits based on it.

it's exactly what SCOTUS said. Read the ruling.