So, is the SCOTUS Looking to Destroy the Country….

[1pooh4u]

Or will they decide Presidents do not in fact have sweeping immunity? Seems like maybe in a way but not completely?

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/politics/live-news/supreme-court-trump-immunity-04-25-24/index.html

if the court decides Presidents can do wtf they want as long as it’s “official business” idt I want to live in a country like that.  
What is the reason we have presidential immunity in the first place?  

theoretically if the court agrees completely with Trump’s team (not likely to happen) then couldn’t Biden assassinate Trump and say it was official business for the good of the country?  

[katt_goddess]

If the founders had wanted presidential immunity to be forever and all-inclusive, they wouldn't have written into the Constitution how to go about IMPEACHING a president. That was included in case someone made it into the office that turned out to be absolutely unfit for continuing in that office. 'Immunity' ends when the actions being taken are not for the good of the country as a whole but are rather solely engaged in for personal gain. And since his own lawyers have publicly stated that his immunity would even allow him to order the assassination of political rivals from the Oval Office, that's a massive red flag for 'personal gain'. 

Further, if presidential immunity were absolute, the 25th amendment wouldn't include the language about the removal of a president because there could be no removal of a president other than death itself. 

[1pooh4u]

1 minute ago, katt_goddess said:

If the founders had wanted presidential immunity to be forever and all-inclusive, they wouldn't have written into the Constitution how to go about IMPEACHING a president. That was included in case someone made it into the office that turned out to be absolutely unfit for continuing in that office. 'Immunity' ends when the actions being taken are not for the good of the country as a whole but are rather solely engaged in for personal gain. And since his own lawyers have publicly stated that his immunity would even allow him to order the assassination of political rivals from the Oval Office, that's a massive red flag for 'personal gain'. 

Further, if presidential immunity were absolute, the 25th amendment wouldn't include the language about the removal of a president because there could be no removal of a president other than death itself. 

Impeachment isn’t a criminal proceeding though so if a president is impeached it doesn’t mean it will lead to criminal prosecution necessarily, or at all. 
 

 

[katt_goddess]

13 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Impeachment isn’t a criminal proceeding though so if a president is impeached it doesn’t mean it will lead to criminal prosecution necessarily, or at all. 
 

 

No, but it does remove him from office forever based on his own actions. If immunity were absolute, actions wouldn't matter in the least. It also disconnects them from receiving any of the benefits a former president is allowed including Secret Service protection. 

[1pooh4u]

3 minutes ago, katt_goddess said:

No, but it does remove him from office forever based on his own actions. If immunity were absolute, actions wouldn't matter in the least. It also disconnects them from receiving any of the benefits a former president is allowed including Secret Service protection. 

If he goes to prison, which he probably won’t, he should lose that protection automatically. What’s the secret service gonna do?  Lock agents up with him?

[Raptorpat]

The game isn't really whether or not he has absolute immunity (he doesn't). The game is whether they can find some factual question as to where immunity begins and ends so they can remand it back to the trial court to figure out before proceeding with the trial.

Or to put it another way, their goal is to delay trials until after the election.

[scoobdog]

51 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

If he goes to prison, which he probably won’t, he should lose that protection automatically. What’s the secret service gonna do?  Lock agents up with him?

Maybe the secret service can hire cellmates to act as his protection.  I hear they work for cheap, and they don't need health benefits.  Per Diem paid in cigarettes and smuggled burner phones.

[Icarus27k]

The U.S. Supreme Court is a problem. They are clearly are legitimizing unconstitutional ideas. The good news is this isn't the first time in U.S. history the court has done that and they can be overturned later. 

I would seriously consider term limits for Justices and limiting judges' jurisdiction (for example, mandating judges canNOT preside over cases where politicians who helped appoint them are defendants). 

It's not the Supreme Court from 25 years ago. It's some weird corrupt court now. 

Edited April 26 by Icarus27k

[Icarus27k]

Also, every so often, John Roberts tries to make the case that Congress should give judges a pay raise. It's supposedly a big deal issue for him. 

I would laugh in his face every time he tries to lobby for that. 

[1pooh4u]

29 minutes ago, Icarus27k said:

The U.S. Supreme Court is a problem. They are clearly are legitimizing unconstitutional ideas. The good news is this isn't the first time in U.S. history the court has done that and they can be overturned later. 

I would seriously consider term limits for Justices and limiting judges' jurisdiction (for example, mandating judges canNOT preside over cases where politicians who helped appoint them are defendants). 

It's not the Supreme Court from 25 years ago. It's some weird corrupt court now. 

I agree with you. the fact that the SCOTUS can shape the country for generations, regardless of the will of the people, is frightening 

[Raptorpat]

35 minutes ago, Icarus27k said:

It's not the Supreme Court from 25 years ago. It's some weird corrupt court now. 

lolwat the Supreme Court 25 years ago did Bush v. Gore 

Literally the only difference between now and then is that half the GOP appointees then were secretly liberals or libertarians. The Court has been a farce since Nixon.

[1pooh4u]

58 minutes ago, Raptorpat said:

The game isn't really whether or not he has absolute immunity (he doesn't). The game is whether they can find some factual question as to where immunity begins and ends so they can remand it back to the trial court to figure out before proceeding with the trial.

Or to put it another way, their goal is to delay trials until after the election.

But aren’t Trump’s lawyers saying his immunity is absolute?  
 

If it gets sent to a lower court (likely to happen) then if Trump wins isn’t that just as good for him as a decision of total immunity? 

[katt_goddess]

1 hour ago, 1pooh4u said:

If he goes to prison, which he probably won’t, he should lose that protection automatically. What’s the secret service gonna do?  Lock agents up with him?

I already had fun with this question in another thread.

Dumpster is going to be in a single cell just because of who he is anyway so they will only need one agent on the outside of the cell to babysit the little shitter, keep him from killing himself and keeping all visitors away. The assignment could go to either those on their way to retirement and therefore unfit for official street duty or those who are just starting and are assigned it as a form of patience training. Hell, I'd do it - just sitting outside the cell for the shift with a pile of reading materials, maybe tease his loser ass by using an e-reader with internet connection just out of his reach, eating snacks, never talking to him. 

47 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

Maybe the secret service can hire cellmates to act as his protection.  I hear they work for cheap, and they don't need health benefits.  Per Diem paid in cigarettes and smuggled burner phones.

 

[1pooh4u]

11 minutes ago, katt_goddess said:

I already had fun with this question in another thread.

Dumpster is going to be in a single cell just because of who he is anyway so they will only need one agent on the outside of the cell to babysit the little shitter, keep him from killing himself and keeping all visitors away. The assignment could go to either those on their way to retirement and therefore unfit for official street duty or those who are just starting and are assigned it as a form of patience training. Hell, I'd do it - just sitting outside the cell for the shift with a pile of reading materials, maybe tease his loser ass by using an e-reader with internet connection just out of his reach, eating snacks, never talking to him. 

 

Trump in a single cell on a 23/1 would be sweet justice to me 

[Raptorpat]

24 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

But aren’t Trump’s lawyers saying his immunity is absolute?  
 

If it gets sent to a lower court (likely to happen) then if Trump wins isn’t that just as good for him as a decision of total immunity? 

The Court isn't required to pick from option A or B, just between no immunity or absolute immunity. Or to put it another way, Trump can win despite without his argument winning.

Here is Elie Mystal's summary of and his projection based on the oral arguments: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/supreme-court-trump-immunity-hearing/

[1pooh4u]

1 hour ago, Raptorpat said:

The Court isn't required to pick from option A or B, just between no immunity or absolute immunity. Or to put it another way, Trump can win despite without his argument winning.

Here is Elie Mystal's summary of and his projection based on the oral arguments: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/supreme-court-trump-immunity-hearing/

The conservative SC Justices are fuckin gross 

[tsar4]

Someone on Reddit came up with a great question that one of the Justices should have asked Trump's lawyer.

"Are you insinuating that the current sitting President could have your client assassinated and cancel the election and it would be entirely legal?"

(Credit: BrokeBeckFountain1)

I might have also suggested that the sitting POTUS could have the entire SCOTUS assassinated with the same legal aspect.

[discolé monade]

i like that you were in my head space with this. 

i, too, was going to post something very similar to this perspective. 

i kid you not. 

 

 

at any rate.

 

LAUGH ON LOUDLY.  this country is a LOT of fun these days. 

 

[Master-Debater131]

4 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

Seems like maybe in a way but not completely?

 

That's going to be the answer.

They are going to rule that the President has Qualified Immunity, and thats likely the best ruling they can make.

The idea that the President has total or zero immunity is horrible. Presidents absolutely have to have the ability to act in a split second without worrying that a future President might charge them for a crime. ALL Presidents have to have that kind of legal cover in order to function in that role. They cant have total immunity though. I think it was Sotomoyer who had the question on if a President could assassinate their rival with no consequences. Thats pretty clearly not OK. POTUS cant order the assassination of their political rival, but they also cant be charged for any little thing they may do while in office.

SCOTUS is going to rule that POTUS has some sort of qualified immunity, and its going to piss everyone off even though thats the right ruling.

The real question is going to be what counts and is covered under that qualified immunity.

[1pooh4u]

I can understand civil liability protection such as qualified immunity for presidents because they can’t be dragged into court for every decision they make however them being immune to criminal prosecution when they commit crimes because they need to make split second decisions is fuckin dumb.  Presidents should be held to a higher standard not lower 

[1pooh4u]

50 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

i like that you were in my head space with this. 

i, too, was going to post something very similar to this perspective. 

i kid you not. 

 

 

at any rate.

 

LAUGH ON LOUDLY.  this country is a LOT of fun these days. 

 

It seems, according to the article Pat linked me to, this SCOTUS has been very careful with their decisions, making sure anything they rule on cannot be used to Biden’s advantage.  Basically they would never say he has total immunity because Biden could then yaddah yaddah….

[Master-Debater131]

4 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

I can understand civil liability protection such as qualified immunity for presidents because they can’t be dragged into court for every decision they make however them being immune to criminal prosecution when they commit crimes because they need to make split second decisions is fuckin dumb.  Presidents should be held to a higher standard not lower 

I agree with you. I just dont think its practical. Heres roughly the example that I heard on the radio that made me rethink my position.

The President is informed that there is an imminent attack about to take place against one of our bases in the Middle East. We know where they are, and that the attack is going to come from a suicide bomber in a truck packed with explosives. So he orders a drone strike on that truck. Everyone agrees that the attacker was in the car so the attack is carried out like any number of other strikes, its a pretty routine event. Then after the attack it turns out our intelligence was wrong and the truck did not hold a terrorist, but a civilian, maybe even an American journalist. So the President didnt drone strike a terrorist, but a civilian/journalist. Thats clearly a crime, but should he then be charged for that crime? No, he shouldnt. At the time of the decision all information pointed to that being a critically necessary decision. It was only after the fact that we discovered the intelligence is wrong, and that the decision itself was wrong.

The President has to be able to act in those situations without fear that if his decision is based on bad intel he will be charged and go to jail. If he cant act in those cases then at some point that false attacker will be real, and a whole lot of Americans might die.

 

He cant be allowed to assassinate his political opponents, but he has to have the ability to act in the official role of POTUS to make those snap decisions and not worry that a future administration is going to put them in jail.

If they have zero immunity then pretty much every living President would be in jail right now. Its not perfect, but they have to have some latitude to make those kind of critical decisions.

[1pooh4u]

1 minute ago, Master-Debater131 said:

I agree with you. I just dont think its practical. Heres roughly the example that I heard on the radio that made me rethink my position.

The President is informed that there is an imminent attack about to take place against one of our bases in the Middle East. We know where they are, and that the attack is going to come from a suicide bomber in a truck packed with explosives. So he orders a drone strike on that truck. Everyone agrees that the attacker was in the car so the attack is carried out like any number of other strikes, its a pretty routine event. Then after the attack it turns out our intelligence was wrong and the truck did not hold a terrorist, but a civilian, maybe even an American journalist. So the President didnt drone strike a terrorist, but a civilian/journalist. Thats clearly a crime, but should he then be charged for that crime? No, he shouldnt. At the time of the decision all information pointed to that being a critically necessary decision. It was only after the fact that we discovered the intelligence is wrong, and that the decision itself was wrong.

The President has to be able to act in those situations without fear that if his decision is based on bad intel he will be charged and go to jail. If he cant act in those cases then at some point that false attacker will be real, and a whole lot of Americans might die.

 

He cant be allowed to assassinate his political opponents, but he has to have the ability to act in the official role of POTUS to make those snap decisions and not worry that a future administration is going to put them in jail.

If they have zero immunity then pretty much every living President would be in jail right now. Its not perfect, but they have to have some latitude to make those kind of critical decisions.

Trump isn’t being accused by acting off bad intelligence. Yes, he’s claiming he was acting off bad advice from attorneys with the fake electors plot, but that is quite a bit different than acting off bad intelligence.  There was no imminent threat in this actual circumstance and he took the bad advice because it was what he wanted to hear. He was willing to do anything to remain president 

[discolé monade]

lol. 

devil's advocate for #45. 

don't it just figure. 

[Master-Debater131]

35 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Trump isn’t being accused by acting off bad intelligence. Yes, he’s claiming he was acting off bad advice from attorneys with the fake electors plot, but that is quite a bit different than acting off bad intelligence.  There was no imminent threat in this actual circumstance and he took the bad advice because it was what he wanted to hear. He was willing to do anything to remain president 

This isnt really about Trump though, hes just the first President dumb enough to push things this far. This is about all Presidents, both past and future. Thats the kind of case this is going to be. Whatever the decision that SCOTUS makes is going to go down as one of the most consequential decisions in our nations history. This is entirely uncharted legal territory, and SCOTUS is going to have a massive impact on future presidents with this decision.

Here, lets take Trump entirely out of this. During the Obama administration he killed an American citizen with a drone strike. Remember the American who became a key propagandist for Al Qaeda in Africa? He was American, and Obama killed him. Thats a crime. He used a drone to kill an American Citizen. Terrorist or not, that person should have been given every right to a trial that all other Americans are afforded.

Should Obama be in jail for ordering the killing of an American Citizen?

The answer to that in this case is absolutely not. He absolutely needs to be clear to make those kind of decisions without a future President coming in and saying "nahhh, I think you should go to jail for that".

I get that Trump is the one whos bringing the case, but at its core this isnt about Trump. This is a question on the limits of Presidential Immunity from being charged for crimes. Trumps just the first President dumb enough to push things to this point.

[PenguinBoss]

I find it humorous that you think he should be treated respectfully solely because he was American despite being a terrorist.

This case doesn't have so much to do with future retaliation as it does being held responsible for blatantly breaking the law in an effort to stay in power.

But yeah, I'm sure giving the guy who says he'll just be dictator only "day one" absolute immunity will go great.

[scoobdog]

The SCOTUS isn’t going to turn this into a landmark decision.

That Obama example is ridiculous because it perfectly encapsulates the purpose of low standards for presidential immunity:   eliminating threats in the most extreme situations is about expediency.  As counterintuitive as it might seem, that expediency is most evident when the result is death, bankruptcy or disenfranchisement, and the court knows this.  I’m oversimplifying this to illustrate the point - if Trump were to use the intel he stored next to his toilet to, say, have a well known critic of his administration taken out by Putin, where is the line between personal benefit and public?  There’s no question it’s morally repugnant in addition to being illegal, however the fact the critic is summarily silenced opens debate as to whether or not the murder has a demonstrative effect on the safety of other Americans, the state as a whole or even the power of the office.

All the Justices need to do, or even have the stomach to do, is deliberate on what the constitutes purpose for immunity.  Can a result be tied back to a reasonable intent to protect American interests?  The safe avenue is for them to limit legal arguments to the “beneficial” results of a potentially immunized action.  Obama taking out an American propagandist for Al-Qaida is a slam dunk:  there is a clear benefit in having a sympathetic element in the terrorist threat removed, and it’s equally reasonable to say that a drone strike could be the most expedient way to remove that threat.  

[scoobdog]

3 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Should Obama be in jail for ordering the killing of an American Citizen?

The answer to that in this case is absolutely not. He absolutely needs to be clear to make those kind of decisions without a future President coming in and saying "nahhh, I think you should go to jail for that".

The real absurdity here is the notion that standards don’t exist now.  Immunity is to an action, not a person; that in itself is a standard that has been all but explicit for as long as the unwritten rule has existed.  Only in Trump’s diseased brain does the line between man and action not exist which is why this whole discussion is a sham.

[discolé monade]

i mean....just bound and determined be ostracized.

lol. 

[1pooh4u]

13 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

This isnt really about Trump though, hes just the first President dumb enough to push things this far. This is about all Presidents, both past and future. Thats the kind of case this is going to be. Whatever the decision that SCOTUS makes is going to go down as one of the most consequential decisions in our nations history. This is entirely uncharted legal territory, and SCOTUS is going to have a massive impact on future presidents with this decision.

Here, lets take Trump entirely out of this. During the Obama administration he killed an American citizen with a drone strike. Remember the American who became a key propagandist for Al Qaeda in Africa? He was American, and Obama killed him. Thats a crime. He used a drone to kill an American Citizen. Terrorist or not, that person should have been given every right to a trial that all other Americans are afforded.

Should Obama be in jail for ordering the killing of an American Citizen?

The answer to that in this case is absolutely not. He absolutely needs to be clear to make those kind of decisions without a future President coming in and saying "nahhh, I think you should go to jail for that".

I get that Trump is the one whos bringing the case, but at its core this isnt about Trump. This is a question on the limits of Presidential Immunity from being charged for crimes. Trumps just the first President dumb enough to push things to this point.

If an American citizen is living in a hostile country and is willingly and knowingly participating in terror activities then maybe them being a citizen shouldn’t matter cuz they’re a traitor?  When Bin Laden was killed there was never a “catch him alive” scenario so I imagine no one is crying over an actual traitor to the country being assasinated by Obama. 

[1pooh4u]

They don’t need qualified immunity so that they can kill wtf they want. Almost no one is asking for the president to not be able or do his job and protect us from threats.  Trump committed crimes and it wasn’t even for “the good of the country” it was just because it was good for him. 

[Master-Debater131]

37 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

If an American citizen is living in a hostile country and is willingly and knowingly participating in terror activities then maybe them being a citizen shouldn’t matter cuz they’re a traitor?  When Bin Laden was killed there was never a “catch him alive” scenario so I imagine no one is crying over an actual traitor to the country being assasinated by Obama. 

Even when the decision was made there was a ton of questioning about the legality of it. The ACLU even said that they were tempted to sue but in the end decided not to. He wasnt engaged in active combat in a war zone giving us a very clear green light to take him out, he was making propaganda in Africa.

[Master-Debater131]

The amazing thing is that so far everyone seems to be actually agreeing with the core of my point. Presidents have some form of qualified immunity to act in their official role.

 

Where everyone then goes off the rails is you cant see the forest for the trees on this case. It isn't about Trump. Its about all Presidents, both past and future. Trump is simply the catalyst to an unanswered question, how much immunity does a President have? SCOTUS isnt going to rule on Trump, what Trump did, or anything about Trump himself.  They are going to rule on just how much immunity a President has.

If they rule that POTUS has full immunity then theres nothing stopping any POTUS from doing anything they want, and the flip side is if they rule that POTUS has zero immunity then all future Presidents are going to wind up in jail. Thats why SCOTUS is going to establish that POTUS has some sort of immunity for official acts of office.

They wont even touch the question of Trumps actions. This is entirely about Presidential Immunity.

[Master-Debater131]

11 hours ago, PenguinBoss said:

I find it humorous that you think he should be treated respectfully solely because he was American despite being a terrorist.

 

I mean, I didnt actually say that, but I guess whatever you want to believe, go for it.

 

Obama did the right thing by droning that asshole. Legally? Very grey area.

[Raptorpat]

34 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Thats why SCOTUS is going to establish that POTUS has some sort of immunity for official acts of office.

I don't think anyone disputes that. The question is where does official end and personal begin?

[scoobdog]

1 hour ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Even when the decision was made there was a ton of questioning about the legality of it. The ACLU even said that they were tempted to sue but in the end decided not to. He wasnt engaged in active combat in a war zone giving us a very clear green light to take him out, he was making propaganda in Africa.

That's what the ACLU does, and, at that, it's a civil proceeding which would have had no bearing on the immunity question.  You're intentionally blurring a very clear line here by attempting to bring the law into the discussion:  presidential immunity is above any law and applies to all acts in an official capacity.  No one questioned Obama's ability to do what he did because it was clear he was using his immunity to bypass process and eliminate a threat.  Ex President Trump stacking boxes of random secrets has neither an identifiable job-related purpose nor a national benefit.  Trump can not prove he was acting in an official capacity, thus he clearly has no immunity based on the doctorine as it currently exists.

[Master-Debater131]

2 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

I don't think anyone disputes that. The question is where does official end and personal begin?

They are though. You are seeing people saying that the President should have no immunity.

SCOTUS isnt going to rule on your question, even though people seem to think they are. This case isnt about Trump, its about presidential immunity.

[scoobdog]

4 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

They are though. You are seeing people saying that the President should have no immunity.

Nobody is saying that, and no serious pundit is suggesting that Immunity should be somehow limited.  What they're debating is whether or not ex-President Trump should have immunity extended to him after he leaves office.

[Raptorpat]

please tell me where in the unanimous circuit opinion on the immunity argument it was so questionable as to require a second look

(pg. 18-20; 32-41)

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24409152/dc-circuit-immunity-opinion.pdf

[Raptorpat]

The words they write will be for everyone, but the reason they are even writing the words to begin with instead of letting the circuit opinion stand is because (1) at least a third of the court believes it's a meritless political prosecution and/or that the other side was the real coupers all along, and (2) John Roberts views his job as lowers the partisan temperature when necessary and he believes the best way to do that right now is to punt any trial until after the election.

So he will probably write an opinion to split the baby, drawing some new line on criminal immunity and kicking it back to the trial court to restart the process from square one with the immunity instructions. Trial will be (a) delayed until after the election or (b) cancelled entirely if he wins the election.

[1pooh4u]

3 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

I don't think anyone disputes that. The question is where does official end and personal begin?

I think any charges related to the documents he lied about having should be considered personal. He wasn’t president anymore.  If, what MD said is true, “they need immunity to make split second decisions”, then once a president is no longer president they don’t need any immunity anymore.  
 

stuff related to the fake electors scheme might be more difficult to decide because he was president however he’s a selfish pos and nothing about it should be seriously looked at as official business. He had people telling him the theories were shit. 

[katt_goddess]

1 hour ago, Master-Debater131 said:

They are though. You are seeing people saying that the President should have no immunity.

SCOTUS isnt going to rule on your question, even though people seem to think they are. This case isnt about Trump, its about presidential immunity.

The only person I've heard of that is claiming that any discussion about a limit on immunity = no immunity is Drumpf himself and all his sad little suck-ups. 

He wants immunity to be absolute for all the things but especially all those things he did for his personal gain. 

[PenguinBoss]

6 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

I mean, I didnt actually say that, but I guess whatever you want to believe, go for it.

 

Obama did the right thing by droning that asshole. Legally? Very grey area.

 

20 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Terrorist or not, that person should have been given every right to a trial that all other Americans are afforded.

Just because you decide to play sides doesn't mean you didn't say it. And I think everyone that's been in the Israel thread know you don't care about killing non-Americans.

[1pooh4u]

Once you are proven by military intelligence to be aiding terrorists or actually engaging in terrorist activities Idt one’s citizenship means anything anymore because you’re now an enemy combatant. This isn’t simply a citizen that murdered another citizen. This was a citizen who decided to live abroad and harm US interests. I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure people considered enemy combatants aren’t given the benefit of the legal system they’re in the military hands now. Right or wrong it’s pretty much what it is 

[_lost_username_]

6 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

I mean, I didnt actually say that, but I guess whatever you want to believe, go for it.

 

Obama did the right thing by droning that asshole. Legally? Very grey area.

If he had the guy killed in the U.S. or an allied country where we already had resources on the ground or something like a NATO/allied country, it'd definitely be something at least impeachable if not criminal. A warzone without anyone in charge and no way to have local authorities capture them is quite a different story, especially if they're a clear and present danger.

Plus, if presidents were allowed to pull out all the stops to prevent the constitutional transfer of power, like stage coups or assassinate opponents, we'd be Venezuela at best or North Korea at worst. I don't really want my descendants being indoctrinated to believe that the Trump family was born on Mount Denali and next to divine or shit like that.

I had an essay I wrote for a website when I was a newspaper columnist about the supreme court and the fact that it's really in need of reform. Because I don't want to blast my real name, I'll just bullet point what I said and you guys can just shit all over it.
 

• Limit Justices to a single 18-year term
• A single Justice is appointed in each odd year to replace one term-limited out, limiting presidents to two justices per term. That would mean that even a two-term president would not be appointing more than half of justices.
• If a justice dies, the replacement is appointed to fill out the dead justice's term, no longer.

I didn't do anything too complicated. I figured an 18 year term is long enough to keep stability on the court but also bring about generational change, preventing stagnation. It would also mean that most reasonable presidents would appoint judges in their 40s and 50s. Of course, some white dudes who hate change got butt hurt by it and let me know.

[discolé monade]

Following the story, Alito said in a statement he had “no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag” and that it was “briefly” flown by his wife in response to a neighbor’s yard signs, one of which, the justice told Fox News, read “F**k Trump.”

 

but it's ok. it was his wife's fault. flying those flags at, at leat two of their homes. he's so out of the loop, he didn't know what those flags meant. 

[katt_goddess]

2 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

Following the story, Alito said in a statement he had “no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag” and that it was “briefly” flown by his wife in response to a neighbor’s yard signs, one of which, the justice told Fox News, read “F**k Trump.”

 

but it's ok. it was his wife's fault. flying those flags at, at leat two of their homes. he's so out of the loop, he didn't know what those flags meant. 

And this is the definition of 'snowflake' - seeing someone put up a sign that says bad things about your golden fraud and immediately flipping the nation's flag upside down because the sky is falling.  

Meanwhile we had people with the same swearing signs/different candidate setting up right in front of a school because mah free-peach!

[1pooh4u]

We’re fucked.  This court is a disgrace 

[discolé monade]

According to an exclusive report from Rolling Stone, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s husband, Jesse Barrett, is now repping Fox Corporation in a $3 million defamation suit, raising questions about conflicts of interest and personal enrichment enjoyed by conservative Supreme Court justices.

 

opinion piece

[1pooh4u]

23 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

According to an exclusive report from Rolling Stone, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s husband, Jesse Barrett, is now repping Fox Corporation in a $3 million defamation suit, raising questions about conflicts of interest and personal enrichment enjoyed by conservative Supreme Court justices.

 

opinion piece

And it’s perfectly legal for Barrett to stay on any case where there is conflict of interests or the appearance of conflicts.  The Justice themselves decide if they can or cannot be bias.  It’s fuckin crazy