Donald is about to go through some things...

[Al-O-Meter]

I have no idea what charges will remain, after all the appeals related to the SC immunity decision. But, try to remember this is much more about the power of the presidency moving fwd., and less to do with what will eventually remain of the charges Trump faces in the federal courts. The alarm, which you consider fear mongering, and for which you referred to 2 liberal SC justices as “morons”, has to do with the immediate prospect of Trump returning with the prospect of him using his office to enact “retribution”. Methinks he’s enjoying that SC decision.

There is no change to Presidential power.

As a side note, in life: you should be cautious at taking the opinion of a lawyer who you are not personally paying. They lie. There is a reason that when they were making a movie about a father who could not lie for 24 hours, they made that character a lawyer. A lawyer's profession is to advocate a position. In this case, the so-called experts you trust are being paid to advocate the idea of this case being dangerous. That you can find material from them making that argument doesn't mean it is true or that they even believe it themselves. All it means was that a work product was delivered.

As for Sotomayor and Jackson being morons, I am comparing them to the other lawyers graduating from Ivy League schools which includes all of the other Supreme Court justices. Sotomayor admits as much.

"I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am Puerto Rican, born and raised in the south Bronx. My test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale."

Sotomayor says she was 'perfect affirmative action baby' - CNN.com

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor years ago said she was a "product of affirmative action" when she was admitted to prestigious universities, but defended the contributions she offered as a Hispanic woman to classroom and workplace diversity.

www.cnn.com

Personally I would like to see LSAT scores for every Supreme Court Justice.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

.View attachment 16709

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Oh Trump’s definitely been “going through some things”. Plowing right through children’s cries to stop raping them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Red]

There is no change to Presidential power.

I don’t believe you could be more mistaken. Based on your description of 2 of our liberal SC justices, I’m guessing all these brilliant legal minds must also be “morons” according to your astute interpretation. Give me a break….you could not be more wrong.

Eminent legal scholar and one of the most cited by SCOTUS, Yale’s Akhil Reed Amar:

How the US supreme court shredded the Constitution and what can be done to repair it | Laurence H Tribe

Court’s troubling rulings on presidential immunity and regulatory power make it clear that change is an ethical essential

www.theguardian.com

I Argued ‘U.S. v. Nixon.’ The Supreme Court’s New Ruling on Presidential Immunity Appalled Me.

Fifty years after ruling against a corrupt president, the Court has now decided that presidents are above the law.

www.thebulwark.com

 

[Red]

There is no change to Presidential power.

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/02/nx-s1-5026545/new-presidential-immunity-ruling-supreme-court-constitutional-scholar

What does presidential immunity ruling mean for presidential power, democratic norms?

Experts are concerned that the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision has drastically expanded presidential powers and dealt a blow to checks and balances.

abcnews.go.com

How the Supreme Court immunity ruling reshapes presidential power

In one of the most anticipated rulings of the year, the Supreme Court declared that former President Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for any so-called “official act” taken as president, but not “unofficial ones'' taken as a candidate. Amna Nawaz discussed how the ruling reshapes...

www.pbs.org

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Immunity Ruling Escalates Long Rise of Presidential Power

Beyond Donald J. Trump, the decision adds to the seemingly one-way ratchet of executive authority.

www.nytimes.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCTNDSMUP18

Supreme Court Grants Trump, Future Presidents a Loaded Weapon to Break the Law | ACLU

By granting Donald Trump immunity for a wide range of criminal conduct committed while in office, the Supreme Court has set a dangerous precedent that presidents are above the law.

www.aclu.org

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I’m guessing all these brilliant legal minds must also be “morons” according to your astute interpretation.

Not at all. There are extremely talented lawyers on both sides, but Sotomayor and Jackson aren't among them. I'm noting that you refuse to read the decision for yourself and you refuse to take in any information from any source challenging your wrongheaded view. You want the propaganda. Your misconception of Presidents now being above the law is falsified by the reality of a former President being subjected to criminal prosecutions for acts committed while in office, but reality falls in the category of things challenging your wrongheaded view and is discarded.

 

[fishonjazz]

Not at all. There are extremely talented lawyers on both sides, but Sotomayor and Jackson aren't among them. I'm noting that you refuse to read the decision for yourself and you refuse to take in any information from any source challenging your wrongheaded view. You want the propaganda. Your misconception of Presidents now being above the law is falsified by the reality of a former President being subjected to criminal prosecutions for acts committed while in office, but reality falls in the category of things challenging your wrongheaded view and is discarded.

A. The prosecutions you speak of haven't begun yet.
B. Sometimes when a change is made it starts taking effect after the change was made and things that happened before the change was made aren't affected by the change.
C. Those acts trump committed while in office are currently being considered right now whether they were official acts or not. Not everything a president does in office will be immune. But some things will have immunity. Which increases the power. Not everything is immune so not complete and total power but some things will be immune so definitely more power
D. Even if a president is prosecuted for something done while in office, some of the evidence proving guilt could now be inadmissible in court due to immunity. Making it harder to convict.
Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 365]

I have no idea what charges will remain, after all the appeals related to the SC immunity decision. But, try to remember this is much more about the power of the presidency moving fwd., and less to do with what will eventually remain of the charges Trump faces in the federal courts. The alarm, which you consider fear mongering, and for which you referred to 2 liberal SC justices as “morons”, has to do with the immediate prospect of Trump returning with the prospect of him using his office to enact “retribution”. Methinks he’s enjoying that SC decision.

The problem is, with the immunity the Supreme Court provided Trump, it gives trump with assurance. One, he knows his trials will be delayed until past the election. Two, he knows that he can crime and then his alleged crimes will have to be vetted, weighed, and then decided by judges that he’s appointed. Trump knows that if he’s president, this court he’s created is unlikely to find crimes that aren’t part of his immunity that they’ve created. An example of this was his phone call threatening GA sec of state Brad Raffensburger to find enough votes to give the state to him. Biden wouldn’t try this because he’s not a fascist and he knows that the Trump Supreme Court would likely rule this to not be immune from prosecution. Trump absolutely would, because he’s a fascist and knows that his court is going to protect him.

What Trump’s Supreme Court has done is gaming the system. They granted unnecessary privileges and protections for Republican presidents. It’s hard for democracy to survive when one political party believes that the rule of law only applies to their political opponents while their own tribe gets to do whatever they want and have judges they’ve hand picked decide whether their actions are legal or not.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

... and have judges they’ve hand picked decide whether their actions are legal or not.

Oh noes! Judges, who are subject matter experts in laws, are deciding if an act violates a law? The horror.

If am curious as to your viewpoint though: How do you see the attempted overthrow of the democracy of the Democrat National Party's Presidential nomination process going? Do you think it will be successful and is that a good thing?

 

[fishonjazz]

Oh noes! Judges, who are subject matter experts in laws, are deciding if an act violates a law? The horror.

If am curious as to your viewpoint though: How do you see the attempted overthrow of the democracy of the Democrat National Party's Presidential nomination process going? Do you think it will be successful and is that a good thing?

What if Biden steps down?
Is it illegal to step down once you have won the nomination?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[LogGrad98]

What if Biden steps down?
Is it illegal to step down once you have won the nomination?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

No. Not the nomination. I mean I supposed he could step down at any time. I don't believe there is any aspect of illegality to it.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

What if Biden steps down?
Is it illegal to step down once you have won the nomination?

The nomination process isn't defined by laws, so nothing is illegal, but rather the process is defined by rules adopted by the parties. The rules to become a Republican nominee is different from the rules to become a Democrat nominee. For the Democrats, the guiding document is this: https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2024-Delegate-Selection-Rules.pdf

To really answer your question, the DNC can do whatever it wants. Two terms we may all get familiar with are 'super delegates' and 'brokered convention'. We haven't had a brokered convention since the DNC did it in 1952. but that is what they call it when the nominee naming process gets creative, and super delegates are the parties' way of subverting the will of the people to place the candidate they want.

What Is a Brokered Convention? | HISTORY

The history of U.S. presidential elections is filled with political conventions that were anything but predictable.

www.history.com

Superdelegates Are Super Anti-Democratic: How Political Parties Try To Rig Their Primary Elections | GoodParty.org

When it comes to primary elections, don't be too shocked to learn that the "democratic process" isn't quite as democratic as it's cracked up to be.

goodparty.org

The place where things can run off the rails is at the state level. The states get to decide who is on and not on the ballots. The most famous example of that was the election of 1860 where there were two different democrat nominees with one on the ballots of some states and the other appearing on the ballots of other states. The guy who won the election wasn't on the ballots of many states. The winner was Abraham Lincoln and the election of 1860 was the start of the US Civil War. No pressure 2024 DNC.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Oh noes! Judges, who are subject matter experts in laws, are deciding if an act violates a law? The horror.

If am curious as to your viewpoint though: How do you see the attempted overthrow of the democracy of the Democrat National Party's Presidential nomination process going? Do you think it will be successful and is that a good thing?

Laughable when you try to hold democrats accountable. Hold yourself accountable first before throwing stones.

Where was this energy with the judges on the Trump cases? “It’s lawfare!!!”. Pathetic. Maybe wiki will help you with a cut and paste.

I’ll help you, the DNC is garbage is will do whatever. They robbed us of Bernie, damned us with Hillary, and ushered in Trump.

You, like most here, are listening in the 2 party sauce. The only difference is one isn’t trying to turn us into a Christo-fascist state. Big difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk