-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The director of the film says black womenfolk get more abortions because they are poor, not because they are black.
still disproportionate
Dissenting supreme court judge urges Biden to assassinate trump
Posts
Total:
188
-->
@Double_R
The idea that democrats should be breathing some sigh of relief from this is silly.
Well, when you characterize the Politico quote in that sarcastic manner, it does sound a bit silly. The search for a publication you are able to respect whose substance supports what I am saying goes on…
Trump can do whatever he wants, and the rest of us can do nothing about it.
Ah, just like what Vox says. Unsurprisingly, THAT is a publication you can respect. But you have already conceded that a Seal team assassination hypothetical (which falls under the scope of “can do whatever”) is a bit dramatic even for you. Why the dramatic conclusion now?
-->
@cristo71
The search for a publication you are able to respect whose substance supports what I am saying goes on…
It has nothing to do with the publication, read the opinion. "Absolute immunity" has a very clear definition within the English language, and that's what the SC just granted the president in certain situations.
But you have already conceded that a Seal team assassination hypothetical (which falls under the scope of “can do whatever”) is a bit dramatic even for you. Why the dramatic conclusion now?
Because we're specifically talking about the president's command over the justice department, which the SC explicitly said in their ruling cannot even be questioned.
The seal team 6 remarks are a bit dramatic, I think, but I also in that same post pointed out that the SC removed pretty much any conceivable avenue for which evidence against a president who ordered it could even be brought so it's an open question. Would you care to opine on that? If the president's motives cannot be questioned in any context, and if the president's communications with his agencies is, regardless of content, inadmissible in court, how do you prosecute a president who orders the assassination of a political rival?
Honestly, my position on the seal team 6 hypothetical perhaps just feels dramatic, probably because of my unfounded faith in people generally and our rule of law specifically. But when rationally scrutinized, I'm not so sure my impulses there are correct.
-->
@Double_R
Trump can do whatever he wants, and the rest of us can do nothing about it.
Can you give a hypothetical example of how your claim could play out?
-->
@cristo71
Can you give a hypothetical example of how your claim could play out?
Trump orders his DOJ to prosecute every one who has opposed him politically. He explicitly tells his officials to fabricate evidence and give false testimony. He then tells them he will immediately pardon them for anything they've done on connection with these orders, and will fire them if they don't.
Under this ruling Trump's motives cannot be questioned, so the individuals and their connection to Trump is inadmissible. Under this ruling, Trump's conversations with his DOJ officials is automatically inadmissible, so what he tells them cannot be reviewed by congress or the courts. And of course, his pardon power is absolute, so no one can reverse it.
Based on the above it is impossible to even bring a prosecution let alone secure a conviction. None of us can do anything about it.
-->
@Double_R
Wow… how melodramatic. In your own words: “Republican fantasies about prosecuting Joe Biden have always been ridiculous…” Perhaps that doesn’t apply to Democrat nightmares about Republican persecution somehow…
Well, at the very least, what about Biden’s ability to claim immunity to such prosecution? And anyone operating under Biden’s authority in a legitimately Constitutional capacity? (Which is what I have been trying to point out all along— as I said “perhaps futile”)
-->
@cristo71
the legality of an act doesn't matter if there is no enforcement mechanism
The Central Intelligence Agency was still defending, as late as last year, a 2005 decision by Gina Haspel and her former boss, Jose Rodriguez, to destroy videos of CIA torture at a black site Haspel oversaw, according to previously unpublished documents obtained by ThinkProgress.
Remarkably, the CIA argued that it did not need to preserve videotapes of its “enhanced interrogations” — torture sessions with suspects that involved methods like wall slams, confinement boxes, and waterboarding — because they were like formal government meetings, and therefore less stringent guidelines applied when it came to preserving records of such a “meeting.”
President Donald Trump nominated Haspel as CIA director last week. She was a “strong advocate” for destroying the torture tapes, a former CIA officers told The New York Times, and she reportedly sent the Nov. 8, 2005, memo that approved their destruction.
-->
@cristo71
Wow… how melodramatic
I provided a detailed action by action breakdown to satisfy your hypothetical and then referenced the specific parts of the ruling that render the scenario legally impossible to prosecute. Calling that melodramatic just shows how unserious you are to talk to.
In your own words: “Republican fantasies about prosecuting Joe Biden have always been ridiculous…” Perhaps that doesn’t apply to Democrat nightmares about Republican persecution somehow…
Clearly, you haven't bothered to absorb a word I've said.
The purported position within MAGA is that the prosecutions against Trump open Biden up to the same, the idea here being that prosecutions are just a matter of descretion having little to do with the law or any reasonable standard of evidence. That's what is ridiculous, so if we're talking about using the rule of law against Biden there just isn't a threat there.
What we're talking about here and especially now is not a scenario where the rule of law is being used, it's being set to the side entirely. The president has now been granted by the SC a window within which he can operate with all of the impunity of Vladimir Putin. That's not an exaggeration, that's what logically follows from the term "absolutely immune".
Trump's potential and even promised abuses of power has always been a threat democrats recognized and is front and center to why we believe Trump is unequivocally dangerous to reelect. This ruling effectively legalizes all abuses of power. Not exaggeration, by definition.
Well, at the very least, what about Biden’s ability to claim immunity to such prosecution? And anyone operating under Biden’s authority in a legitimately Constitutional capacity?
Again, no one cares about this including MAGA, because no one actually believes Joe Biden will abuse his powers in the way the SC just gave him the power to do. Also because none of us on the left care about or even want Biden to have such immunity. If he broke the law then prosecute him. That's how the rule of law works.
The republicans have spent the past few years telling their cult followers that Biden is some kind of mob boss criminal mastermind. The fact that none of them are ringing the alarm bells about what he now has the power to do is difinitive proof that they have been lying through their teeth the entire time.
(Which is what I have been trying to point out all along— as I said “perhaps futile”)
Perhaps what is futile is getting you to absorb a word I've said. I responded directly to your point before and did so again here. If there is something you think I've missed then rephrase.
-->
@Double_R
shows how unserious you are to talk to.
Yet you insist on initiating conversation with me regardless.
Clearly, you haven't bothered to absorb a word I've said.
Back atcha, Lex.
Again, no one cares about this including MAGA
*sigh* I am asking this in the context of the very nightmare scenario you conjured up! Please read it again because I don’t know how to simplify the concept further.
-->
@Double_R
In other words, the scenario you describe would be a violation of executive immunity, not a fulfillment of it. Do you understand what I am saying?
-->
@cristo71
Yet you insist on initiating conversation with me regardless
I just do it for the exercise. I'm not a constitutional professor so I'm well open to the idea that I'm wrong, just waiting on someone to provide a well thought out rebuttal.
In other words, the scenario you describe would be a violation of executive immunity, not a fulfillment of it. Do you understand what I am saying?
No, because what you're saying seems to defy basic English. Immunity by definition means the immunized person cannot be prosecuted, therefore the only way to violate this is to prosecute them.
-->
@Double_R
No, because what you're saying seems to defy basic English. Immunity by definition means the immunized person cannot be prosecuted, therefore the only way to violate this is to prosecute them.
*facepalm* That is what I’m saying!! Dang, man…
Try and follow this:
If Trump… were to prosecute Biden and his administration… as you just imagined that happening… in your post addressed to me… that would violate Biden’s entitlement to the immunity that SCOTUS just ruled in favor of.
-->
@WyIted
The chief justice even called out her hysteria in the majority opinion. The freak out over this is a mix of hilarious and depressing, it was a very reasonable and measured decision and didn’t give Trump anything close to what he was asking for.
Of course the POTUS is immune from prosecution from official acts. Obama unintentionally killed a US citizen in Yemen during a drone strike against his father who was a legitimate military target. Obviously Obama can’t be charged with negligent homicide or whatever. Trumps alleged conduct re: January 6 is almost certainly not an official act (at least most of it) and SCOTUS created a rough framework for the lower court to assess what was and wasn’t. They aren’t going to have time to do that before the election, but that’s why you don’t wait until the last minute to put forward a complex and novel case.
And no, sending the navy seals to assassinate your political opponents is not an official act lol. Murdering your political opponents is not a power given to the President by the constitution.
-->
@thett3
Exactly! THANK YOU. Geesh… someone gets it…
The chief justice even called out her hysteria in the majority opinion.
Justice Roberts— who I guess qualifies as MAGA now?— was barely able to disguise his incredulity in his response to the hysteric claims of Justice Sotomayor. I guess Biden’s debate performance has fried her already delicate circuits…
-->
@cristo71
The truth about Sotomayer that isn’t the care for Kagan and doesn’t seem to be the case for Jackson(although the jury is still out) is that she’s genuinely unintelligent. People shouldn’t take the claims made in the dissent which is NOT the law at face value
I do appreciate reading the dissenting opinions as much as the other ones because I think it gives me a more rounded view, but Sotomayor is a legit idiot
-->
@WyIted
Will the next American president replace her?
-->
@Tidycraft
They have to commit an official duty to remove her.
Also the first person who posts after this comment has the cock a size of a horse's
Believing the Supreme Courts interpretation on this is a license to kill anyone for any reason by the President proves that the vast majority of people should not be allowed to vote or have any say or influence on other peoples lives. The willful and blatant intellectual dishonesty in politics today is beyond reproach. Humanity is doomed to wipe its self off the earth.
-->
@cristo71
*facepalm* That is what I’m saying!! Dang, man…Try and follow this:If Trump… were to prosecute Biden and his administration… as you just imagined that happening… in your post addressed to me… that would violate Biden’s entitlement to the immunity that SCOTUS just ruled in favor of.
And for the third time... No one cares. I don't know why you think I'm not following what you're saying, I've addressed this twice already.
No one was concerned about Trump prosecuting Biden before because under the rule of law, you'd need to bring facts and evidence, which the political right does not have.
Under this new rule, Biden is apparently immune. So either way, no one cares.
What we care about is what this will mean for everyone else. Because unlike a president, the rest of us are actually subject to the rule of law.
-->
@thett3
The freak out over this is a mix of hilarious and depressing, it was a very reasonable and measured decision and didn’t give Trump anything close to what he was asking for.
It gave Trump more than he was asking for. Trump's attorneys argued that if the president were impeached and convicted by the Senate then he could be criminally charged for official acts. The SC ruled that he could not be charged regardless.
I've addressed why extensively on this page the left wing freak out is not dramatic at all. Do you have any arguments against them?
-->
@Double_R
It gave Trump more than he was asking for. Trump's attorneys argued that if the president were impeached and convicted by the Senate then he could be criminally charged for official acts. The SC ruled that he could not be charged regardless.
In their opinions they literally state that he presidents can be charged for things and that it is not based on whether they feel an act is official duty but whether it is or not, though they did state that the president's mindset could be taken into account.
-->
@WyIted
How do you know sadolite has a horse cock?
-->
@Double_R
No one cares.
Good to know you speak for everyone… everyone that matters, I guess. If YOU don’t care, why did you posit your doomsday scenario fever dream as an example of what could very well happen? You’re all over the place on this, but I don’t wonder why.
I don't know why you think I'm not following what you're saying, I've addressed this twice already.
Well, you have just now registered understanding of what I’m talking about. Second, when I asked “Do you understand?” your answer was “No.”
What we care about is what this will mean for everyone else.
Well then, you should have come up with a hypothetical earlier to match your true concern here instead of wasting my time. As things stand now, your understanding of this ruling is severely limited (as is left leaning media’s representation of the ruling— coincidence?) to that of Justice Sotomayor, who gave basically a “the sky is falling!”, unprofessional dissent written at the undergraduate level. Chief Justice Roberts could barely disguise his incredulity in his response to her dissent. Sotomayor’s writing and jurisprudence has always been at the undergraduate student level, but the unhinged aspect is presumably because Biden’s reelection prospects are faltering.
Nope— no partisan blinders going on around here! (Now, THAT is sarcasm)
Nope— no partisan blinders going on around here! (Now, THAT is sarcasm)
-->
@WyIted
Sorry I couldn't get here in time. I was with Stormy.
-->
@WyIted
though they did state that the president's mindset could be taken into account.
*Couldn't* be taken into account, I assume you meant to say. Just to be clear.
In their opinions they literally state that he presidents can be charged for things and that it is not based on whether they feel an act is official duty but whether it is or not
Correct, they did say that president's can be charged for some official acts, and then they removed nearly every practical means by which this could be accomplished.
I've already explained how in detail. Let me know when you have an actual response instead of just repeating right wing talking points.
-->
@Double_R
This pdf is my response just take a few hours to read through it https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/01/us/scotus-immunity.html
-->
@cristo71
No one cares.If YOU don’t care, why did you posit your doomsday scenario fever dream as an example of what could very well happen? You’re all over the place on this
It's your strawman interpretation of my posts that's all over the place. You repeatedly bring up the immunity now granted to Joe Biden as if Joe Biden ever had anything to do with the concern here. He doesn't. So when I respond to your question, I am telling you that no one cares about the aspect of this ruling you are fixated on.
I am not fixated on Biden, I am fixated on what this ruling means for everyone, particularly if Trump wins another term. That's why my hypothetical did not mention Biden at all, in fact it posited a scenario where a president orders the prosection of all of his political opponents. What is so difficult about that distinction?
Well, you have just now registered understanding of what I’m talking about.
I said the same thing three times in three different sets of words. You are the one who is just now getting it.
when I asked “Do you understand?” your answer was “No.”
I understood your question, I didn't understand your point, because your point appeared to have nothing to do with anything I'm arguing and that seems to have been confirmed.
As things stand now, your understanding of this ruling is severely limited (as is left leaning media’s representation of the ruling— coincidence?)
I've given you a detailed point by point explanation of the issue with what this ruling actually says, a detailed hypothetical which I entirely made up as I wrote it that laid out a specific example and tied every piece of that example to what the ruling explicitly states, and I challenged you to show me how the dots to not connect. You haven't even attempted to refute it, presumably because you haven't read the ruling yourself.
Your insinuation that I'm just believing what I'm told to believe appears to be projection. If you had a real argument against what I've said perhaps you would have offered it.
-->
@cristo71
but the unhinged aspect is presumably because Biden’s reelection prospects are faltering.
Maybe she also knows her health is failing.