calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
oski003 said:
WalterSobchak said:
tequila4kapp said:
All the policy stuff is irrelevant. Both sides can argue their guy did good. It is a never ending cycle of politics.
Biden is not physically or mentally capable to handle the demands of the job. This was not just a bad debate night. We can go back almost to any point during his presidency and pick a point in time where he either was demonstrably more well than today - demonstrating the decline - or we can look to points in time where he was also showing signs of not being well. Remember, it was only 2 or 3 weeks ago where video evidence of this was present and the WH claimed the video was doctored. Again, the debate was not an isolated incident.
We have entered the zone of the movie Dave, where some inner circle is so partisan and so power hungry they keep a figurehead in place but run the country themselves. For the good of the country, this has to end. And it is also the humane thing to do for Biden himself. How disgusting is it to abuse an elderly person like this just for political power?
If people on the left are so power hungry and so afraid of Trump that they must win at any cost...fine. I kind of get that - most R's felt some version of the same thing with HRC. But beat Trump with someone else, someone who is capable of doing the job and doesn't put the nation at risk because of their lost faculties. If you really care about the institution of Democracy - as many of you claim - then fight for what is right.
Put the nation at risk?!? You've got some ****ing nerve. The nation is being systematically dismantled by Trump's court as we speak. Civil war is all but inevitable now.
What are the top 3 systematically dismantling court decisions that are leading us to Civil War and how are they doing this?
OK. Funny how some people are losing their **** over overturning cases that previously overturned prior cases. Civil war from these cases appreciating the separation of power. Does seem a bit emotional.
Biden now has clear legal authority to assassinate Trump and anyone on the Supreme Court he disagrees with in order to defend the Constitution from domestic enemies. Will he do it?
This may be the dumbest thing I have read here. Apparently, you are some constitutional expert who thinks assassination of government officials in the US without due process is a power granted to the president in the constitution. This is how the loonies on the left and the right act and come up with conspiracy theories. Is this any more intelligent than some QAnon nonsense?
What are you talking about? Why does it need to be in the Constitution? Presidential immunity isn't.
Have you read the case before losing your **** and saying the president can now assassinate justices.
Why bother reading the actual holding when you can make up what it means?
Don't let actual facts get in the way of your delirium and conspiracy theories.
I've read the case, have you? Dissents included.
I have read the case. What about the case makes it a valid argument that a president assassinating supreme court justice is now immune from prosecution? Waiting to understand how you think that is what the dissenting justices wrote.
Today's decision to grant former Presidents criminal im-
munity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes
a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution
and system of Government, that no man is above the law.
***
Separate from its official-acts immunity, the majority rec-
ognizes absolute immunity for "conduct within [the Presi-
dent's] exclusive sphere of constitutional authority." Ante,
at 9. Feel free to skip over those pages of the majority's
opinion. With broad official-acts immunity covering the
field, this ostensibly narrower immunity serves little pur-
pose. In any event, this case simply does not turn on con-
duct within the President's "exclusive sphere of constitu-
tional authority," and the majority's attempt to apply a core
immunity of its own making expands the concept of "core
constitutional powers," ante, at 6, beyond any recognizable
bounds.
***
In this case, however, the question whether a former
President enjoys a narrow immunity for the "exercise of his
core constitutional powers," ante, at 6, has never been at
issue, and for good reason: Trump was not criminally in-
dicted for taking actions that the Constitution places in the
unassailable core of Executive power. He was not charged,
for example, with illegally wielding the Presidency's pardon
power or veto power or appointment power or even removal
power. Instead, Trump was charged with a conspiracy to
commit fraud to subvert the Presidential election. It is true
that the detailed indictment in this case alleges that Trump
threatened to remove an Acting Attorney General who
would not carry out his scheme. See, e.g., App. 216217,
Indictment 74, 77. Yet it is equally clear that the Gov-
ernment does not seek to "impose criminal liability on the
[P]resident for exercising or talking about exercising the
appointment and removal power." Tr. of Oral Arg. 127. If
that were the majority's concern, it could simply have said
that the Government cannot charge a President's threat-
ened use of the removal power as an overt act in the con-
spiracy. It says much more.
The core immunity that the majority creates will insulate
a considerably larger sphere of conduct than the narrow
core of "conclusive and preclusive" powers that the Court
previously has recognized.
The first indication comes whenthe majority includes the President's broad duty to " 'takeCare that the Laws be faithfully executed' " among the corefunctions for which a former President supposedly enjoysabsolute immunity. Ante, at 20 (quoting Art. II, 3). That
expansive view of core power will effectively insulate all
sorts of noncore conduct from criminal prosecution. Were
there any question, consider how the majority applies its
newly minted core immunity to the allegations in this case.
It concludes that "Trump is . . . absolutely immune from
prosecution for" any "conduct involving his discussions with
Justice Department officials." Ante, at 21. That conception
of core immunity expands the "conclusive and preclusive"
category beyond recognition, foreclosing the possibility of
prosecution for broad swaths of conduct. Under that view
of core powers, even fabricating evidence and insisting the
Department use it in a criminal case could be covered. The
majority's conception of "core" immunity sweeps far more
broadly than its logic, borrowed from Youngstown, should
allow.
***
Not content simply to invent an expansive criminal im-
munity for former Presidents, the majority goes a dramatic
and unprecedented step further. It says that acts for which
the President is immune must be redacted from the narra-
tive of even wholly private crimes committed while in office.
They must play no role in proceedings regarding private
criminal acts. See ante, at 3032.
Even though the majority's immunity analysis purports
to leave unofficial acts open to prosecution, its draconian
approach to official-acts evidence deprives these prosecu-
tions of any teeth. If the former President cannot be held
criminally liable for his official acts, those acts should still
be admissible to prove knowledge or intent in criminal pros-
ecutions of unofficial acts. For instance, the majority strug-
gles with classifying whether a President's speech is in his
capacity as President (official act) or as a candidate (unoffi-
cial act).
Imagine a President states in an official speechthat he intends to stop a political rival from passing legis-lation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (of-ficial act). He then hires a private hitman to murder thatpolitical rival (unofficial act). Under the majority's rule, themurder indictment could include no allegation of the Presi-dent's public admission of premeditated intent to supportthe mens rea of murder. That is a strange result, to say the
least.
***
Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution,
the long-term consequences of today's decision are stark.
The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the
President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since
the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now "lies
about like a loaded weapon" for any President that wishes
to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his
own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Kore-
matsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson,
J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the
most powerful person in the country, and possibly the
world.
When he uses his official powers in any way, underthe majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated fromcriminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to as-sassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a militarycoup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in ex-
change for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Please give to Cal Legends at https://calegends.com/calegendsdonate/donate-football/ and encourage everyone you know who loves Cal sports to do it too.
To be in the Top 1% of all NIL collectives we only need around 10% of alumni to give $300 per year. Please help spread the word. "If we don't broaden this base we're dead." - Sebastabear
Thanks for reading my sig! Please consider copying or adapting it and using it on all of your posts too. Go Bears!
