July 4, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, TEW said: Leftists are so unimaginably stupid, it is almost beyond belief. Basic reading comprehension, basic factual comprehension, it is all totally above them. But, yeah, totally, please call up DEVGRU to assassinate Trump. I want to see the outcome for craps and giggles. Then please explain to the class
July 4, 20241 yr Is this a joke? Congres is upset because they need to some up with more specific legislation instead of broad garbage https://news.bgov.com/bloomberg-government-news/ai-congressional-action-threatened-by-supreme-court-chevron-blow
July 4, 20241 yr When you read comments from people about recent Supreme court rulings you can tell who just read the headlines from their favorite wing nut sources instead of actually reading the rulings or getting info from better sources.
July 5, 20241 yr 8 hours ago, TEW said: Nah, it is a totally coherent and logical ruling. You just have Nordic brain. No, it’s just a poor decision. They could have pointed to acts described in the constitution for example. Or some other narrowing of the term "official act”. They left it wide open allowing and enabling and idiot like Trump to try to make their own interpretation.
July 5, 20241 yr 52 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: No, it’s just a poor decision. They could have pointed to acts described in the constitution for example. Or some other narrowing of the term "official act”. They left it wide open allowing and enabling and idiot like Trump to try to make their own interpretation. No, it’s a great decision. They made a ruling on the topic presented. You want them to extend the ruling to expedite a specific situation, but that’s not their job. No, they did not leave it "wide open” to allow a president to make their own interpretation. Thats your own illiteracy, lack of legal knowledge, and Swede smoove brain. POTUS does not determine this. The court does. Trump, Biden, or whoever else can claim "official act” as much as they want, but they don’t determine if it is actually an official act. SCOTUS was clear that this was within the constitutionally granted powers of the office. TL;DR you and sh** libs in here are retarded, the conservative court made a great ruling, and I genuinely hope with all the might that my alcohol and nicotine fueled 4th of July heart can muster than Biden and his cabinet is half as retarded as you lot seem to be and actually thinks that this is some grand immunity to do anything and everything. Please, call DEVGRU to assassinate Trump. Please, end elections by presidential decree. Please, do all of it. I am giddy to see the outcome.
July 5, 20241 yr 8 hours ago, Mike030270 said: Then please explain to the class Oh, no, you’re right! POTUS can totally assassinate his political opponent now. You are S-M-R-T! We definitely now live in a fascist country and you totally aren’t retarded. DEVGRU would absolutely just kill a presidential candidate because Biden told them to, POTUS is now the dictator, and you definitely don’t have a mid double digit IQ.
July 5, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, TEW said: No, it’s a great decision. They made a ruling on the topic presented. You want them to extend the ruling to expedite a specific situation, but that’s not their job. No, they did not leave it "wide open” to allow a president to make their own interpretation. Thats your own illiteracy, lack of legal knowledge, and Swede smoove brain. POTUS does not determine this. The court does. Trump, Biden, or whoever else can claim "official act” as much as they want, but they don’t determine if it is actually an official act. SCOTUS was clear that this was within the constitutionally granted powers of the office. Nothing you say here refutes anything I have said. I never said a president could determine anything. I said they could "try”. You must be up drinking. It is unusual for you to make such a trivial error.
July 5, 20241 yr 13 hours ago, The_Omega said: Yeah, Trump and Republicans are the danger "And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” GFY
July 5, 20241 yr 5 hours ago, DrPhilly said: Nothing you say here refutes anything I have said. I never said a president could determine anything. I said they could "try”. You must be up drinking. It is unusual for you to make such a trivial error. POTUS could always "try.” Nothing has changed. Acting like this ruling has done anything to actually expand the powers of POTUS, or even encouraged them to do anything different, is laughable. SCOTUS simply made formal that which was already implied. And yes I was absolutely hammered, but it still stands.
July 5, 20241 yr 10 minutes ago, TEW said: Nothing has changed. Acting like this ruling has done anything to actually expand the powers of POTUS, or even encouraged them to do anything different, is laughable. SCOTUS simply made formal that which was already implied. Riiight. This sheet is hilarious coming from pretend Constitutional Conservatives.
July 5, 20241 yr Author https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/broad-reflections-on-trump-v.-united-states
July 5, 20241 yr It truly is hilarious how quickly libs could be made to believe that this ruling lets presidents assassinate anyone they want. They literally just download whatever nonsensical hysteria the tv is telling them and regurgitate it on command. It's remarkable to watch.
July 5, 20241 yr 55 minutes ago, Kz! said: It truly is hilarious how quickly libs could be made to believe that this ruling lets presidents assassinate anyone they want. They literally just download whatever nonsensical hysteria the tv is telling them and regurgitate it on command. It's remarkable to watch. Or we read the dissent. Chief Justice Robert’s could have written why she is wrong. He didn’t. Any of the other justices could have explained why she is wrong…they didn’t. Not one conservative has come out and explained why she is wrong.
July 5, 20241 yr Just now, Gannan said: Or we read the dissent. Chief Justice Robert’s could have written why she is wrong. He didn’t. Any of the other justices could have explained why she is wrong…they didn’t. Not one conservative has come out and explained why she is wrong. This is what I mean. This guy is literally walking around thinking a president can and might start murdering people legally. Like, what do you even say to someone like that?
July 5, 20241 yr 21 minutes ago, Gannan said: Or we read the dissent. Chief Justice Robert’s could have written why she is wrong. He didn’t. Any of the other justices could have explained why she is wrong…they didn’t. Not one conservative has come out and explained why she is wrong. Because there is no counter argument. Everything Sotomayor said is true. Nothing is off the table as long as it's framed appropriately by the Executive and digging into the motives behind that framing is strictly prohibited, so there's no mechanism for accountability once a term is complete. Trolls like Kz have no choice but to feign laughter at the "overreactions" because if they actually had to use the text we're talking about, they wouldn't have a case. And the wildest part is that the people that screamed "executive overreach" from the rafters all throughout the Obama years (and for decades before that too) are now 100% behind unlimited power for the Executive.
July 5, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, VanHammersly said: Because there is no counter argument. Everything Sotomayor said is true. Nothing is off the table as long as it's framed appropriately by the Executive and digging into the motives behind that framing is strictly prohibited, so there's no mechanism for accountability once a term is complete. These people exist and walk among us. Literally the tv said something, no matter how outlandish, and now van has to believe. Wild stuff.
July 5, 20241 yr Just now, Kz! said: These people exist and walk among us. Literally the tv said something, no matter how outlandish, and now van has to believe. Wild stuff. I never miss 3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Trolls like Kz have no choice but to feign laughter at the "overreactions" because if they actually had to use the text we're talking about, they wouldn't have a case.
July 5, 20241 yr Author What now has to, and almost certainly will be, tested by the courts is what acts can be framed as "official" and which cannot, and what the framework of that legal test looks like. This is IMHO the biggest oversight in this ruling, because it is yet another ruling from this SCOTUS that expands executive powers while leaving complicated questions to lower courts (and in all likelihood future rulings by SCOTUS). The risk of having this court further defined by Donald ef'ing Trump should alone be enough to ensure he never sees the inside of the White House again. He is exactly the type of president the founding fathers warned against, and we seem hell-bent on giving him more power than any other executive in US history because his idiot followers have been scared into believing his lies. To me an official act has to be one that is 100% predicated on fulfilling the president's oath to defend the Constitution and the US. None of the acts he is currently under indictment and scrutiny for, from retaining classified documents after leaving office and explicitly refusing to return them for 18 months to - even while president - pressuring states into "finding more votes" for him so that his election loss is overturned, should be considered "official acts". There is just no way that you can convince me that Trump made those statements as an "official act" of a President to Georgia in any sort of good faith effort to fulfill his duties as president. The defense can make the argument that it's an "official act", but that should be up to a jury to decide, not a judge.
July 5, 20241 yr 11 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: I never miss You literally believe the SC ruling means presidents can kill everyone. How are you real?
July 5, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, Kz! said: You literally believe the SC ruling means presidents can kill everyone. How are you real? You have one move and it's incredibly F'ing stupid. Quote Trolls like Kz have no choice but to feign laughter at the "overreactions" because if they actually had to use the text we're talking about, they wouldn't have a case.
July 5, 20241 yr 9 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: You have one move and it's incredibly F'ing stupid. "You're dumb because you don't believe presidents can legally murder people! I am very sane."
July 5, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Kz! said: "You're dumb because you don't believe presidents can legally murder people! I am very sane." Then make your dumb ass case by using the ruling, Kz. I'll wait.
July 5, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, Kz! said: It truly is hilarious how quickly libs could be made to believe that this ruling lets presidents assassinate anyone they want. They literally just download whatever nonsensical hysteria the tv is telling them and regurgitate it on command. It's remarkable to watch. This is such a rich statement, coming from you. You literally have gargled the balls of Tucker for years. It's remarkable that you can't see you do the same thing.
July 5, 20241 yr 9 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Then make your dumb ass case by using the ruling, Kz. I'll wait. "prove that presidents can't murder people on a whim using direct verbiage from a case I don't understand. I'll wait."
Create an account or sign in to comment