Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1. Who said we want the president to act illegally? That is a lie.Doesn’t matter one bit. You still have to explain why you want the president to be able to use their official powers illegally and still be beyond criminal consequences. I don’t understand you guys harping on this point. As it were somehow less concerning that they can only break the law with the expansive powers of the presidency. The people who want to be removed from the consequences of their actions rarely have good intentions. That’s common sense.
Kavanaugh has mostly been a solid conservative. He has occasionally agreed with the liberal side.I'm not sure what you consider to be liberal and conservative. Kavanaugh has mostly pissed off the right since he's been there. In fact Jackson Brown has made more conservative decisions then he has from what I can see. I think the problem is the left just wants total control and wants to destroy anything that gets in the way of their agenda.
BuffooneryOf course, history will record this court as the Corrupt Roberts Court.
Between carrying the obviously for sale Thomas, the futu4e justices deceiving Congress and the American public in their confirmation hearings, the violation of Stare Decisis, and the glaring appearance of aiding its benefactor Trump, history will not treat this court kindly.
1. It’s the natural conclusion from seeing people desperately trying to make sure that presidents don’t face consequences for acting illegally.1. Who said we want the president to act illegally? That is a lie.
2. What expansive powers? Another lie.
3. Every official action a president needs to take needs to be protected from democrat DAs and their fucked up "LAWFARE" declaring anything a crime, and then using a "kangaroo court" to send the president to prison. Yes we just saw that from Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, and Merrick Garland.
4. No one in any admin or in the military would follow an illegal order.
The propose changes that effect the Supreme Court are good and I don't see why republicans should not support them. The fact that Biden recommend them should not be a reason for rejecting them but of course it will be.There is still enough sanity in Congress as corrupt as it is to understand that co-equal is co equal. This court is functioning just fine. There have been numerous decisions showing that the justices on the court value jurisprudence more than they do political separation.
None more outstanding than the 9 to 0 decision to block state supreme courts from eliminating Trump from the ballot.
Kavanaugh has made a number of liberal decisions. Jackson Brown has made a number of conservative decisions.
The court is healthy. It wasn't healthy when the prune was there. She had a larger than life presence and a disdain for the Constitution.
Jackson Brown has been something of a pleasant surprise frankly. Perhaps a disappointment to the left.
Jo
Nope. That ship has sailed. Robert's had his chance to do something. And he didn't make a peep until he realized that it would go down in history as the corrupt Roberts court
EXXXXXXACTLY.... They will never get the support for it.1. Who said we want the president to act illegally? That is a lie.
2. What expansive powers? Another lie.
3. Every official action a president needs to take needs to be protected from democrat DAs and their fucked up "LAWFARE" declaring anything a crime, and then using a "kangaroo court" to send the president to prison. Yes we just saw that from Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, and Merrick Garland.
4. No one in any admin or in the military would follow an illegal order.
1. There is no such thing as a "natural conclusion" dumbass. You can't prove we want the president to act illegally. That is still a lie.1. It’s the natural conclusion from seeing people desperately trying to make sure that presidents don’t face consequences for acting illegally.
2. Claiming the president doesn’t have expansive powers is a bit silly. You know they run the executive branch of the federal government which has massive authority.
3. Never needed it before Trump and we were fine. The courts are already perfectly well prepared to differentiate between what is and isn’t a crime. They do so every day. If you really think that the courts are that corrupt, having presidential immunity isn’t the answer because that only protects a tiny number of people. What’s to protect us from a president like Trump using kangaroo courts to send his political enemies to jail?
4. Why wouldn’t they follow and illegal order? They’re out into power by Trump and are quite loyal to him.
Roberts needs to ignore the low-lifes.EXXXXXXACTLY.... They will never get the support for it.
At this point it's definitely out of reach. Having said that I think Roberts should probably take some initiative to set up a reasonable framework.
That hasn't panned out to be true. After watching The incredible legal contortions in New York State there is absolutely no question that the law would be abused from here on out by both sides. The presidential immunity clause is the only thing that stops that from happening.
1. Natural conclusion. Common sense. Simple logic. It’s all the same. Call it what you will. The fact MAGA supported Trump’s illegal attempt to reverse the outcome of the election proves to me that you want him to do illegal things.1. There is no such thing as a "natural conclusion" dumbass. You can't prove we want the president to act illegally. That is still a lie.
2. The president doesn't have expansive powers. His powers are defined in the Constitution, they don't change. So you're still lying.
3. Democrat's Lawfare against Trump proved that immunity is needed. You'll notice how slowly the appeals process is taking to review Trump's (34) bullshit felonies. What's to protect us from Trump using kangaroo courts? Because only democrats use them. Trump does not have control of the judicial system dumbass.
4. They wouldn't follow illegal orders dumbass. Stop lying. Trump does not have a Gestapo.
Biden uses the SS and FBI as his Gestapo.
I don't think its about immunity as much as the democrat's play to control the USSC.I've read through the thread, didn't see this question answered.
What "presidential immunity clause"?
WW
Still ignored the fact that the cases in NY have nothing to do with presidential immunity.Bad wording perhaps...
1. There was no insurrection. Verifying election results is perfectly legal.1. Natural conclusion. Common sense. Simple logic. It’s all the same. Call it what you will. The fact MAGA supported Trump’s illegal attempt to reverse the outcome of the election proves to me that you want him to do illegal things.
2. Defined by the constitution and still quite expansive as determined by the many laws Congress has passed expanding their duties by adding agency after agency. Hell, Trump and his supporters claim he had enough authority to inset himself into determining the outcome of an election. I don’t see that anywhere in the constitution.
3. The 34 felonies are unrelated to the presidential immunity case, not part of their official acts. Also, I’ve yet to meet any MAGA that doesn’t think they’ll be overturned. They are quite sure about their control over the courts and who can blame them given the deference SCOTUS has shown Trump.
4. Why wouldn’t they? Especially after Trump successfully eliminates hundreds of career civil servants and inserts his own cronies. They’ve been talking about it at length.
The problem here is that you’re just putting all your faith into Trump. To you, this is all okay because you don’t think Trump will abuse the system, ignoring we already saw him abuse the system. The rest of us want something a little more concrete than “trust me”.
jonathanturley.org
jonathanturley.org
I fail to see how term limits or a binding code of conduct would allow either party to control the Supreme Court.I don't think its about immunity as much as the democrat's play to control the USSC.
Never happen, but its a talking point play for low info voters.
As soon as President Potatohead explains how he's going to get his Constitutional Amendment through the House, the Senate and passed in 3/4 of the states' legislatures. K?Let the Republican party explain to the American people why they're the only ones that want the president to be able to break the law without being criminally responsible.
