(Thread IKs:
weg, Toxic Mental)
|
I know we've been dealing with "TRUMP" for almost a decade now but it's still absolutely shocking to me how broken these people's brains are
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
wow you're right there green racist frog pfp guy quote:
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
MEIN RAVEN posted:Jesus. Just the most blatant “rules don’t apply to us or the people we hate” lines. loving fascists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
did SCOTUS ever ask "will the President be allowed to murder a Supreme Court Judge?" i feel like that would factor in their ruling significantly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
Quick reminder to everyone who forgot, Joe the Plumber is dead now. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
nobodygetshurt posted:did SCOTUS ever ask "will the President be allowed to murder a Supreme Court Judge?" They talked about sending Seal Team 6 to kill political rivals which is basically that
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
nobodygetshurt posted:did SCOTUS ever ask "will the President be allowed to murder a Supreme Court Judge?" I mean, kind of did - they asked should the President have immunity if he used the military to kill any political opponents, that would include SCOTUS members for certain. e;fb
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:17
|
|
|
but specifically assassinating SCOTUS judges. i feel like that should've come up. they're taking this immunity bullshit seriously, i wonder if it would change their minds if a question targeting them specifically would change their mind. i mean that's literally what the chuds are implying here nobodygetshurt fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Apr 25, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:18
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:Quick reminder to everyone who forgot, Joe the Plumber is dead now. He's clearly a plumber of Joes
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:20
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:
I mean…no? I listened to the entire oral arguments and during that exchange he specifically said, “I’m not asking this to refer to this case, no no I don’t want to infer that, just for how future cases may be affected by a ruling.” I got the sense he was very much anti-Trump immunity here. There are some important questions about how to actually navigate charging a president. It’s literally never been a problem before but once or twice and not got his extent. Trump just road tested the very core fabric of the parchment the constitution was written on and I get the sense SCOTUS actually kind of hates him for it. It’s just a huge loving mess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:20
|
|
|
nobodygetshurt posted:but specifically assassinating SCOTUS judges. i feel like that should've come up. they're taking this immunity bullshit seriously, i wonder if it would change their minds if a question targeting them specifically would change their mind. The SCOTUS are the ones asking questions at this point. And them asking "well what does that mean to me, personally?" would be rather uncouth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:21
|
|
|
Couldn't the DC judge just say "great, we start the trial tomorrow!" It's in his power to delay whatever he was about to start and say he's bumping the trump case, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
nobodygetshurt posted:but specifically assassinating SCOTUS judges. i feel like that should've come up. they're taking this immunity bullshit seriously, i wonder if it would change their minds if a question targeting them specifically would change their mind. I think this was addressed specifically in the questioning on whether a sitting president can order a coup. kazil posted:SCOTUS A coup from a sitting president would include removing power from the supreme court and congress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:Quick reminder to everyone who forgot, Joe the Plumber is dead now. And nothing of value was lost
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
I wish Biden would summon Thomas to his office and say "retire or I am nominating 4 more judges tomorrow."
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
i mean they are right. at best for them its a very limited "offcial acts immunity" and trumps poo poo doesnt fall into that or get gets booted down and delays happen. i dont think they rule for trump explcitly. Blind Rasputin posted:I mean…no? I listened to the entire oral arguments and during that exchange he specifically said, “I’m not asking this to refer to this case, no no I don’t want to infer that, just for how future cases may be affected by a ruling.” I got the sense he was very much anti-Trump immunity here. There are some important questions about how to actually navigate charging a president. It’s literally never been a problem before but once or twice and not got his extent. Trump just road tested the very core fabric of the parchment the constitution was written on and I get the sense SCOTUS actually kind of hates him for it. It’s just a huge loving mess. yeah i can see that. what you think the ruling will be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:30
|
|
|
Justice K is basically at, “Trump is a lost cause bad faith actor and immunity shouldn’t apply, but what if a future good faith president found themselves being investigated by political opponents?” How do you protect the country from a bad faith president that breaks a bunch of laws for their own personal gain? But Also, how do you protect a good faith president from bad faith judges or political opponents armed to the teeth with biased prosecutors? It’s a tough thing to figure out and the lower court basically ruled a bit too tautologically that “the president has no immunity from prosecution, because he is being prosecuted.” As in, simply because a grand jury can return a verdict and a case can be argued, there can’t possibly be immunity. Just as Trump exploited the power of his office, this could easily be exploited by bad actors as well. This stuff needs to be figured out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:31
|
|
|
New York going red       
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:31
|
|
|
This dumdum wasn't paying attention. This was already discussed that the judges themselves knew they weren't above the law, and never have been.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:New York going red yeah lol. I think NY could vote red someday, but its gonna be under some new rockafeller type that not in the wings right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
heard u like girls posted:This one is p epic Which is it seems like a lot of people are forgetting the first two rules of Jesus Club. Oh and that if you keep spraying a priest or monk with water they will throw hands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:Couldn't the DC judge just say "great, we start the trial tomorrow!" It's in his power to delay whatever he was about to start and say he's bumping the trump case, right? the defendant is kinda busy at the moment
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:34
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:New York going red Lmao In their minds NYC and California were "flipped at 3am" Lmao these people have severe brain damage
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:34
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:I wish Biden would summon Thomas to his office and say "retire or I am nominating 4 more judges tomorrow." ...federal law says 9 justices how would that even work What are you even appointing them to
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:34
|
|
|
California went red too, btw. But then the CIA intervened 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
Seth Pecksniff posted:...federal law says 9 justices how would that even work What federal law says 9 justices?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
Seth Pecksniff posted:...federal law says 9 justices how would that even work
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:Quick reminder to everyone who forgot, Joe the Plumber is dead now. also wasnt even named joe or was a plumber
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
Seth Pecksniff posted:...federal law says 9 justices how would that even work Does it explicitly say 9 justices?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
Serious_Cyclone posted:California went red too, btw. But then the CIA intervened Yknow Not REAL Americans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
I was about to get a date with a hot girl on tinder but the CIA intervened and she blocked me. At 3 am.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:New York going red
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:38
|
|
|
Seth Pecksniff posted:What are you even appointing them to ..the supreme court? what do you think people meant by "biden should pack the court"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
Fair complexion maybe
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
nobodygetshurt posted:I was about to get a date with a hot girl on tinder but the CIA intervened and she blocked me. At 3 am. they did you a favor because messaging a hot girl at 3am is a self cockblock
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
Regressives for decades : NY and big cities are poo poo holes! *big cities even at their worst are economic engines that dominate tiny poo poo hole towns, oh also various other metric still do better than small dying towns*
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
nobodygetshurt posted:I was about to get a date with a hot girl on tinder but the CIA intervened and she blocked me. At 3 am. Agents Bobs and Vagine
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:40
|
|
|
I know it’s been asked before but I don’t remember the answer Why are all the PW avatars cats?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:40
|
|
|
nobodygetshurt posted:I was about to get a date with a hot girl on tinder but the CIA intervened and she blocked me. At 3 am. Excuse me that was us, The Deep State. Nobody gives us enough credit for minor inconveniences in life. Now if you would excuse me, I need to dig a pot hole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:I mean…no? I listened to the entire oral arguments and during that exchange he specifically said, “I’m not asking this to refer to this case, no no I don’t want to infer that, just for how future cases may be affected by a ruling.” I got the sense he was very much anti-Trump immunity here. There are some important questions about how to actually navigate charging a president. It’s literally never been a problem before but once or twice and not got his extent. Trump just road tested the very core fabric of the parchment the constitution was written on and I get the sense SCOTUS actually kind of hates him for it. It’s just a huge loving mess. 110% yes. Executive immunity is one of those questions that the Constitution is almost entirely silent on, but everyone has spent the past 240 years politely pretending that executive privilege is real because the alternative was worse--no one wants to open the door to the courts being weaponized to paralyze the presidency with bullshit legal proceedings. The exact boundaries were always vague and fuzzy since it's not actually in the text of the Constitution, but that wasn't a problem as long as the president was smart enough to not get caught doing obvious crimes. Now Trump hosed everything up and put the court on the spot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:40
|
|
