July 5, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, Kz! said: "prove that presidents can't murder people on a whim using direct verbiage from a case I don't understand. I'll wait." Make your case, bish. Reference the ruling and make your case. My case was already made by the dissent and it's never been disputed. Make yours...or just slap down a few more rolling emoji's and say the same dumb line you've said 5 times already
July 5, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, Kz! said: 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? Well, to be fair the supreme court never said he could do that. However, they did say he could do that if he screams "this is an official act” first.
July 5, 20241 yr 8 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Make your case, bish. Reference the ruling and make your case. My case was already made by the dissent and it's never been disputed. Make yours...or just slap down a few more rolling emoji's and say the same dumb line you've said 5 times already One SC justice went full libtard in the dissent so you think you're justified believing just insanely stupid hysteria. This is the content I'm here for. Please continue to wring your hands over the SC ruling that legalizes murder for presidents.
July 5, 20241 yr Technically Obama had an American citizen murdered so it’s not like this is an outrageous claim.
July 5, 20241 yr 2 hours 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. Trump has already come out thru his lawyers saying all the events in and around Jan 6 were "official acts”. It literally happened within 48hrs after the ruling.
July 5, 20241 yr Just now, DrPhilly said: Trump has already come out thru his lawyers saying all the events in and around Jan 6 were "official acts”. It literally happened within 48hrs after the ruling. He needed to say it before no backsies
July 5, 20241 yr 32 minutes ago, Kz! said: One SC justice went full libtard in the dissent so you think you're justified believing just insanely stupid hysteria. This is the content I'm here for. Please continue to wring your hands over the SC ruling that legalizes murder for presidents. My total number of misses: 0 44 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: slap down a few more rolling emoji's and say the same dumb line you've said 5 times already
July 5, 20241 yr Just now, VanHammersly said: My total number of misses: 0 You're totally owning me by thinking presidents can murder everyone without any consequences, van! keep up the good work.
July 5, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: It's hilarious because it's what libtards now legitimately believe.
July 5, 20241 yr Just now, Kz! said: It's hilarious because it's what libtards now legitimately believe. It's hilarious because you have no argument and you're brain's so smooth all you can do is repeat the same line over and over again.
July 5, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: It's hilarious because you have no argument and you're brain's so smooth all you can do is repeat the same line over and over again. You're argument is sotomayor said something incredibly stupid so you'll repeat it because the tv also said it. My argument is 8 justices disagree with that assessment. And, on a more serious note, you understand Presidents don't get to murder people now, right? Like, take a deep breath, try to get out of your little echo-chamber of libtard hysteria, and really think about things, van. You can do it.
July 5, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, Kz! said: You're argument is sotomayor said something incredibly stupid so you'll repeat it because the tv also said it. My argument is 8 justices disagree with that assessment. And, on a more serious note, you understand Presidents don't get to murder people now, right? Like, take a deep breath, try to get out of your little echo-chamber of libtard hysteria, and really think about things, van. You can do it. Still nothing. Same boring bullsheet. Show in the text of the ruling where it constrains Executive power. I'll help you out. It doesn't. It expands on Article II powers and even leaves "core Presidential powers" as an open ended set of criteria. It also makes clear that as long as you can justify it as an official act, it's motives can't be questioned. I can't imagine how power that broad could be used nefariously. I'll never get over how weird it is to watch the people that pretended to be conservatives for so long go all in on dictatorship.
July 5, 20241 yr 10 hours 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. 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. The ruling on its face makes sense, but the lack of a test is what makes it bad. The can was always going to be kicked down the road, but now the road has no guard rails. Also, no need to go ad hominem.
July 6, 20241 yr 21 hours ago, Bill said: Also, no need to go ad hominem. He was drunk/smashed. It was obvious given the time. No worries.
July 6, 20241 yr On 7/5/2024 at 1:33 PM, Bill said: The ruling on its face makes sense, but the lack of a test is what makes it bad. The can was always going to be kicked down the road, but now the road has no guard rails. Also, no need to go ad hominem. No. Adding a test is exactly what we DON’T want the court to do — to make rulings based on a specific political circumstance. That’s not their job, nor should it ever be something they do. The question brought before the court was the application of presidential immunity, not what constitutes a legal power of the president. They gave their ruling exactly how the ought to have done. People need to stop demanding the politicalization of the court. And since when does anyone in here give a crap about ad hom?
July 6, 20241 yr 5 hours ago, DrPhilly said: He was drunk/smashed. It was obvious given the time. No worries. 1 minute ago, TEW said: And since when does anyone in here give a crap about ad hom?
July 6, 20241 yr 5 hours ago, DrPhilly said: He was drunk/smashed. It was obvious given the time. No worries. That’s an understatement. On 7/5/2024 at 12:15 PM, DrPhilly said: Trump has already come out thru his lawyers saying all the events in and around Jan 6 were "official acts”. It literally happened within 48hrs after the ruling. It doesn’t matter what Trump or any other president says. What is so difficult to comprehend about this basic fact?
July 6, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, TEW said: No. Adding a test is exactly what we DON’T want the court to do — to make rulings based on a specific political circumstance. That’s not their job, nor should it ever be something they do. The question brought before the court was the application of presidential immunity, not what constitutes a legal power of the president. They gave their ruling exactly how the ought to have done. People need to stop demanding the politicalization of the court. I wasn’t calling for a test based on this particular case, but a test in general to form a guideline. SCOTUS has been given lots of tests in rulings on a variety of subjects. Obviously I know any case of this magnitude involving POTUS is just going to come back to SCOTUS anyway, but they should have still included one.
July 6, 20241 yr Just now, TEW said: That’s an understatement. It doesn’t matter what Trump or any other president says. What is so difficult to comprehend about this basic fact? Just as I said, SCOTUS lack of clarity opened the door for an idiot to attempt to assert something ridiculous using their words. They could have avoided all narrowing OR defined something that made sense instead of just leaving it completely open and handing idiots a wide open phrase to pretend to stand behind.
July 6, 20241 yr Just now, Bill said: I wasn’t calling for a test based on this particular case, but a test in general to form a guideline. SCOTUS has been given lots of tests in rulings on a variety of subjects. Obviously I know any case of this magnitude involving POTUS is just going to come back to SCOTUS anyway, but they should have still included one. SCOTUS was not making a ruling on the extent of presidential powers. The case involved the question of immunity. These are two totally separate things, and making a broad ruling on presidential powers would have been not only outside the purview of the case, but obvious politics. If there is a case about a power being vested to POTUS, then bring that case. This is how the legal system works.
July 6, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Just as I said, SCOTUS lack of clarity opened the door for an idiot to attempt to assert something ridiculous using their words. They could have avoided all narrowing OR defined something that made sense instead of just leaving it completely open and handing idiots a wide open phrase to pretend to stand behind. There was no lack of clarity. They very clearly ruled that official acts by POTUS involving constitutionally granted powers enjoy immunity. You want a test added, that is somehow supposed to be applicable to all actions by POTUS, to see what his authority is. That would be utterly outside the topic and scope of this case and would be BLATANT politicization of the court. POTUS can assert whatever he wants, you can say he can assert whatever he wants, but it doesn’t matter — if an action is thought to be unlawful, then bring a case about it and get a ruling.
July 6, 20241 yr 6 minutes ago, TEW said: SCOTUS was not making a ruling on the extent of presidential powers. The case involved the question of immunity. These are two totally separate things, and making a broad ruling on presidential powers would have been not only outside the purview of the case, but obvious politics. If there is a case about a power being vested to POTUS, then bring that case. This is how the legal system works. Where do you see any reference to "power”? Bill is talking about immunity.
July 6, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, TEW said: There was no lack of clarity. They very clearly ruled that official acts by POTUS involving constitutionally granted powers enjoy immunity. You want a test added, that is somehow supposed to be applicable to all actions by POTUS, to see what his authority is. That would be utterly outside the topic and scope of this case and would be BLATANT politicization of the court. POTUS can assert whatever he wants, you can say he can assert whatever he wants, but it doesn’t matter — if an action is thought to be unlawful, then bring a case about it and get a ruling. Ok. You are clearly dug in and you aren’t going to change my mind or Bill’s mind since we are right 😊 Guess the discussion is over.
July 6, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Ok. You are clearly dug in and you aren’t going to change my mind or Bill’s mind since we are right 😊 Guess the discussion is over. You’re wrong, of course, which is where the discussion will actually end.
Create an account or sign in to comment