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

[PenguinBoss]

On 6/28/2024 at 12:11 PM, Master-Debater131 said:

They may be experts, but they were not elected and are working in the bureaucracy. By the very definition of the word they are unelected bureaucrats.

There is nothing preventing them from continuing their work, or their ability to recommend changes and rules. All that changes is they cannot simply enact whatever they want now. If what they recommend is good enough to be a law, then they can go to Congress to pass a law.

The failure of one branch of Government to do its job does not mean that someone else simply gets to fill that void. If rules are laws are not getting passed then thats a failure of Congress and means we need better people in Congress.

Cool.

Personally, I think there's an inherent flaw in uneducated people electing politicans who create legislature based on whoever donated/paid the most to them.

[Blackrose321]

11 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

I’m going to sound boomer af when I say this but I blame the internet.  Back in the day stupid people were kept pretty largely separated because of distance and communication technology was basically cups with string. Now stupid people by the millions can gather in real time and co-sign each other’s horrible beliefs. People get paid a lot of money to spread all sorts of misinformation because they know once it’s out there and a few people believe it, it won’t ever go away. No matter the evidence to the contrary.  The internet is both wonderful and horrible all at once 

Not boomer at all. The internet allowed me to make much-needed connections at a time when I was very isolated, but it was a different beast 20 years ago. It's so out of control now that I've limited my use of it. I come here every so often to see what's going on, I check Facebook every few weeks to see if anyone has messaged me, and I only check Reddit every few days when I'm bored, and only briefly. Instagram is for watching pet videos, I never used Twitter, etc.

I just can't stand the way people interact online and, consequently, offline. There's constant bickering to the point that it's obviously what many people are looking for when they go online. They'll intentionally misread what you write just to be argumentative. You can't get a straight answer to a single damn question, and the majority of people don't bother to think for themselves or do actual research. They'll sit there with a full fucking computer in the palm of their hand and spread misinformation because they're too grossly lazy to run a google search. The likes and fights are the point, and I consider that an inferior mindset to operate from so I don't engage anymore.

On that note, future generations won't inherit anything useful from their elders. No words of wisdom, no kindness, no empathy. They'll get trollspeak. But you bet your ass these "elders" will still expect respect from young people because they worked damn hard sitting on their ass scrolling through TikTok videos!

What an abject shame.

[1pooh4u]

2 hours ago, Blackrose321 said:

Not boomer at all. The internet allowed me to make much-needed connections at a time when I was very isolated, but it was a different beast 20 years ago. It's so out of control now that I've limited my use of it. I come here every so often to see what's going on, I check Facebook every few weeks to see if anyone has messaged me, and I only check Reddit every few days when I'm bored, and only briefly. Instagram is for watching pet videos, I never used Twitter, etc.

I just can't stand the way people interact online and, consequently, offline. There's constant bickering to the point that it's obviously what many people are looking for when they go online. They'll intentionally misread what you write just to be argumentative. You can't get a straight answer to a single damn question, and the majority of people don't bother to think for themselves or do actual research. They'll sit there with a full fucking computer in the palm of their hand and spread misinformation because they're too grossly lazy to run a google search. The likes and fights are the point, and I consider that an inferior mindset to operate from so I don't engage anymore.

On that note, future generations won't inherit anything useful from their elders. No words of wisdom, no kindness, no empathy. They'll get trollspeak. But you bet your ass these "elders" will still expect respect from young people because they worked damn hard sitting on their ass scrolling through TikTok videos!

What an abject shame.

The worst part is that behaviors that most people would think are abhorrent online are now spilling out into reality, as people can no longer separate, nor do I think they care to anyway, what is acceptable behavior and what isn’t.  Example, trolling 20 years ago was pretty much an online phenomenon. Most  people were hiding behind their little screens but now that behavior is taken out into the world. It’s like people have no ability to deal with even the smallest inconvenience without melting down 

[Blackrose321]

1 hour ago, 1pooh4u said:

The worst part is that behaviors that most people would think are abhorrent online are now spilling out into reality, as people can no longer separate, nor do I think they care to anyway, what is acceptable behavior and what isn’t.  Example, trolling 20 years ago was pretty much an online phenomenon. Most  people were hiding behind their little screens but now that behavior is taken out into the world. It’s like people have no ability to deal with even the smallest inconvenience without melting down 

Agreed. It's why I quit my job as a librarian. I noticed patron behavior getting worse starting in 2016 but managed to hold out until 2022. After that it just didn't seem worth it anymore.

Here's a dumb story for you - the library re-opened its doors "post"-COVID with certain guidelines in place: you must wear a mask, you must socially distance, etc. We also stopped accepting cash for fines and, to ensure this didn't cause problems, we stopped blocking accounts on the basis of fines altogether. We also stopped applying new fines. All cards were open to check out anything their owner wanted.

This old fart walks in and says he'd like to pay his fine. We tell him he can do it online but, really, it's not necessary as his card is completely open to use anyways. He insists on paying his $2 fine. Refuses to do it online. Starts ranting about "legal tender". This shit stain literally drove into the library, maybe even paid for parking, just to make a political statement in the middle of a pandemic.

We ended up wiping his fines which took the wind out of his sails. But this kind of shit has been commonplace for a while now. I was struggling to deal with overgrown toddlers before Trump even left office. I literally had a group of senior citizens try to stage a coup in the middle of a free computer class.

[1pooh4u]

11 minutes ago, Blackrose321 said:

Agreed. It's why I quit my job as a librarian. I noticed patron behavior getting worse starting in 2016 but managed to hold out until 2022. After that it just didn't seem worth it anymore.

Here's a dumb story for you - the library re-opened its doors "post"-COVID with certain guidelines in place: you must wear a mask, you must socially distance, etc. We also stopped accepting cash for fines and, to ensure this didn't cause problems, we stopped blocking accounts on the basis of fines altogether. We also stopped applying new fines. All cards were open to check out anything their owner wanted.

This old fart walks in and says he'd like to pay his fine. We tell him he can do it online but, really, it's not necessary as his card is completely open to use anyways. He insists on paying his $2 fine. Refuses to do it online. Starts ranting about "legal tender". This shit stain literally drove into the library, maybe even paid for parking, just to make a political statement in the middle of a pandemic.

We ended up wiping his fines which took the wind out of his sails. But this kind of shit has been commonplace for a while now. I was struggling to deal with overgrown toddlers before Trump even left office. I literally had a group of senior citizens try to stage a coup in the middle of a free computer class.

Wow and these were full on adults getting ready for the final phase of life acting like fools. I get where he’s coming from cuz I HATE that places don’t take cash (stadiums and large venues) but I ain’t throwing a fit over it. Especially since the library wasn’t seeking payment at all (I love public libraries so much)
 

Trump winning the election and getting away with Jan 6 emboldened the worst of the worst to do wtf they wanted cuz they’re part of the “very fine people on both sides”

[1pooh4u]

I gotta say it again loud and proud 

I LOVE PUBLIC LIBRARIES SO MUCH AND LIBRARIANS ARE MY MOST FAVORITE POSITION. I LOVE THEM 

[Blackrose321]

3 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Wow and these were full on adults getting ready for the final phase of life acting like fools. I get where he’s coming from cuz I HATE that places don’t take cash (stadiums and large venues) but I ain’t throwing a fit over it. Especially since the library wasn’t seeking payment at all (I love public libraries so much)
 

Trump winning the election and getting away with Jan 6 emboldened the worst of the worst to do wtf they wanted cuz they’re part of the “very fine people on both sides”

Normally we would take cash, and they do again now, but at the time a lot of restrictions were still in place so we didn't want to risk spreading COVID by handling cash, especially not for fines which many libraries have done away with, or will in the future anyways. It was like, "Is this even necessary?..." We felt that, during a pandemic, people needed support and our place was to open services, not restrict them because someone owes us $20. He was upset about COVID guidelines, he thought we were overreacting and since that library is a government entity, he felt anything that limited his "rights" (a word which has lost all meaning) needed to be called out in the name of Justice!

I definitely blame Trump and his supporters for the state of things now. It's not like public service was ever easy but it's gotten worse, it burned me the hell out. But thanks for loving libraries, it's always appreciated.

[1pooh4u]

To me the library is the perfect example of socialism, cooperation and the mostly kind side of humanity. The public library is basically the honor system where people borrow and return so the next person can enjoy it. It’s a refuge from the cold and heat. An escape from reality. A place to learn and be safe regardless of economic status, individual abilities sexual orientation or gender identity. The public library is truly a place for everyone. That’s exactly why conservatives hate it. 
 

I remember getting my first library card. I was 5 years old (I was reading by 4) and so excited to sign my own name. I signed so big, my name couldn’t fit. I even remember the big stack of books I was carrying. I couldn’t see above the stack 😆😆😆😆

[katt_goddess]

37 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

To me the library is the perfect example of socialism, cooperation and the mostly kind side of humanity. The public library is basically the honor system where people borrow and return so the next person can enjoy it. It’s a refuge from the cold and heat. An escape from reality. A place to learn and be safe regardless of economic status, individual abilities sexual orientation or gender identity. The public library is truly a place for everyone. That’s exactly why conservatives hate it. 
 

I remember getting my first library card. I was 5 years old (I was reading by 4) and so excited to sign my own name. I signed so big, my name couldn’t fit. I even remember the big stack of books I was carrying. I couldn’t see above the stack 😆😆😆😆

Pooh is Matilda confirmed.  

Meh, I'm Matilda too. <.< >.> My own card for the Bookmobile that only came through twice a month, 40+ books checked out at a time, reading before entering school. The main reason I don't go to the library now is because I don't drive and the idea of being late returning books gives me physical hives. Instead, I have my own library of about 3100 paper-children, not including magazines and comics. 

If you don't like a book or a particular topic, 99% of the time you aren't going to be forced to read it [ if it's a school thing, you are screwed but reading 'The Great Gatsby' isn't going to kill you, just bore the crap out of you ]. But going into a public place to throw a hissy fit over the existence of books on topics you'd never read anyway is 100% you being a dumbass. Take your drama back to your mama and see if she gives a shit. If you are a boomer, you might finally get to experience the epic beating that was par for the course for those who grew up as the 'Greatest Generation' and decided to act stupid. 

[rpgamer]

1 hour ago, 1pooh4u said:

Trump winning the election and getting away with Jan 6 emboldened the worst of the worst to do wtf they wanted cuz they’re part of the “very fine people on both sides”

I'd expect this is also a factor in the whole online shit-flinging spilling into open spaces. After a clear demonstration that there are no real consequences anymore, there's nothing really holding the social contract together that kept people publicly civil.

[Jman]

The court ruled that the president does not have SWEEPING immunity, but has immunity related to things done within official tasks of the presidency.  i.e.: If the president does something related to duties done in regards to fulfilling the position of the office, he is immune.  If it's stuff not related to his job he happened to do while being president (campaigns, rally speeches, deals done outside of the context of the presidency), he is not immune.

AKA partisan padding the clock.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-immunity-supreme-court-decision-07-01-24/index.html

Essentially this shifts the nature of the defense to "Did Trump act within the duties of the President of the United States, or was he doing this on his own regardless of the duties of the office?"  Clearly the latter, but the stalling tactic is stalling.

Edited July 1 by Jman

[1pooh4u]

Whelp that’s it.  A President has absolute immunity if it’s a presidential act and so do any staff of the oval office carrying out those acts. Now it’s a shit show of what’s an official act and what isn’t.  
He won’t get in trouble for what he did on Jan 6. His act of not calling the NG for several hours, the riling up of the crowd, anything connected to that event including talks of treason (which is what they were doing to overturn the election) will be all fine.  This country is proper fucked now.  “I had to kill that guy he was a danger to the country”

Trump cannot become president again. The things he will do will be fucked up

[1pooh4u]

It’s too fuckin vague. He was president at the time he did that wtf Jan 6 was. This ruling can be manipulated to make anything a presidential act that’s not actually campaigning. 

[Jman]

2 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

It’s too fuckin vague. He was president at the time he did that wtf Jan 6 was. This ruling can be manipulated to make anything a presidential act that’s not actually campaigning. 

Oh yeah, it's vague as all hell.  On purpose so they don't accidentally give Biden the power to pack the courts and order a drone strike on Mar-A-Lago.  

If Trump loses again, I fully expect it to be clarified in such a matter that it has to be things related to official actions, not campaigns, not personal meetings, not rallies, etc.  But they need that vagueness to protect him for now.

Edited July 1 by Jman

[1pooh4u]

3 minutes ago, Jman said:

Oh yeah, it's vague as all hell.  On purpose so they don't accidentally give Biden the power to pack the courts and order a drone strike on Mar-A-Lago.  

If Trump loses again, I fully expect it to be clarified in such a matter that it has to be things related to official actions, not campaigns, not personal meetings, not rallies, etc.  But they need that vagueness to protect him for now.

Now it can be argued that anything he did up to and including Jan 6 was official. “We had to discuss these things your honor. As President I believed there were irregularities in the election process” boom official business even though it was all scheming and conniving 

[1pooh4u]

These constitutional originalists on the court confuse me. Which amendment gives the president this level of authority and immunity?  I’m asking cuz from what I remember from history in school was that the founders of the country were very serious about never falling under the power of a tyrant again. It’s why we have that stupid thing where to be president you gotta be born in the US, so there is no confusion as to whose best interest the leader is looking out for.  Seems to me, allowing Trump to get away with trying to overturn an election is exactly opposite of what Franklin Jefferson and pals would have wanted 

[Master-Debater131]

On 4/26/2024 at 4:55 PM, Master-Debater131 said:

The idea that the President has total or zero immunity is horrible.

Just going to repeat what I said months ago.

Do not like this ruling at all.

[Top Gun]

Pretend I posted the Fry "I'm shocked!" gif.

[scoobdog]

On 6/28/2024 at 9:12 AM, Master-Debater131 said:

Oh I completely agree. Part of why we are where we are is because Congress has refused to do its job for decades now. They outsource the hard decisions to the courts and bureaucracy rather than taking a vote that might cost them their job. This has been a failure for both parties for a very long time.

Just wanted to point out:

You're telling us that you would rather have Bobo the Clown dictate greenhouse gas emissions than someone with a ph.D who conducted thirty years of studies determining the correlation between CO2 buildup in the upper atmosphere.  That's not a failure of congress, that's a failure or logic - even if congress is completely populated with the illuminati (lol) they still have to defer to the scientific underpinnings of their decisions.  

[Master-Debater131]

33 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

Just wanted to point out:

You're telling us that you would rather have Bobo the Clown dictate greenhouse gas emissions than someone with a ph.D who conducted thirty years of studies determining the correlation between CO2 buildup in the upper atmosphere.  That's not a failure of congress, that's a failure or logic - even if congress is completely populated with the illuminati (lol) they still have to defer to the scientific underpinnings of their decisions.  

No, I would rather her not be anywhere near a position of power at any level.

 

To your general point though, Congress does not have to defer to anyone. There are three co-equal branches of Government, and nowhere in there is there any mention of scientists or experts. Congress can completely ignore them, or they can take their advice and create laws.

Scientists and bureaucrats can continue to do their work, they are just not prevented from creating rules and laws on their own. They have something important enough that it needs to be a law? Great, petition Congress to pass the law.

A failure of one branch of government to function at the level someone might want does not mean that a shadow branch gets to fill the void. Want laws and regulations? Elect representatives who will do that.

[Dark_Cloud_Overhead]

Well, if there was anyone with any doubt left as to whether this court had become hopelessly corrupt, this ruling should lay that doubt to absolute rest. They're basically spitting on the graves of the founding fathers by doing this. It's bad enough that they delayed this decision to the final day of the term, but no... they had to go even further. Of course they did. SMH

[scoobdog]

56 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

These constitutional originalists on the court confuse me. Which amendment gives the president this level of authority and immunity?  I’m asking cuz from what I remember from history in school was that the founders of the country were very serious about never falling under the power of a tyrant again. It’s why we have that stupid thing where to be president you gotta be born in the US, so there is no confusion as to whose best interest the leader is looking out for.  Seems to me, allowing Trump to get away with trying to overturn an election is exactly opposite of what Franklin Jefferson and pals would have wanted 

That's what I'm thinking as well.

In fact, it's more likely than not that President would have had no immunity at the time of the Constitution's writing.  The federal code was far less complete than it is right now, especially as a lot of the laws covered under the state at the time have been expanded to the Fed as the government has expanded its responsibilities.  Some of the crimes Trump is accused of wouldn't have existed in the 1790s, like the presidential records laws, and things like "insurrection" would have been defined differently.  I doubt the founding fathers would have anticipated having a bunch of goons showing up to disrupt an otherwise ceremonial proceeding at the behest of president who clearly has no idea how the government works.  Having a catch-all outlet of impeachment would have covered most, if not all, conceivable crimes by a renegade chief executive.

When it comes to election interference, I think the interesting thing is that this was always supposed to be a state issue.  The states were supposed to handle their own business when it came to elections - the federal government only needed to make sure that each state had equal representation (regardless of population and economic importance).  No state governor or legislature would ever allow the president to come in and push the state to throw an election.  Part of that was an intrinsic faith in the institutions (like the specific makeup of the senate, House of Representative caps,  and the electoral college) implemented to ensure that each state had an equal measure of determination. Part of it was the fact that each state still had a fairly robust militia to enforce their guaranteed rights.  All of that changed with the Secession and ensuing Civil War.

Aside from the fact Constitutional Originalism is fundamentally flawed because of everything that happened after the mid 19th century, it ignores the logical fact that now system of government exists without evolution.  You can't interpret what someone would have intended with a broad guarantee of rights when it's likely the issues addressed wouldn't have been conceivable.

[scoobdog]

34 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

To your general point though, Congress does not have to defer to anyone. There are three co-equal branches of Government, and nowhere in there is there any mention of scientists or experts. Congress can completely ignore them, or they can take their advice and create laws.

That would be logically false.  For the same reason that Congress would not have to defer to anyone, neither should the Executive or Judicial branchs.  Checks and Balances work through amendments not through retractions - you don't take power from one branch because that branch has no more or less power than you.  By forcing the DoE, DoI, or the DoA to cosign a regulation, you're giving final arbitration for mechanisms assigned to the Executive branch to Congress.  Rather, it should be on Congress to address a regulation after the fact by passing a law that supersedes it.

It's not on scientists to craft regulations that Congress will approve, it's on Congress to address those regulations by creating laws that make them moot.

[1pooh4u]

The Chevron Doctrine seemed perfectly reasonable as far as I can tell with my extremely shallow understanding of it. It seems reasonable to me that courts would defer to experts when there are no existing laws or clear language from Congress. Now we have to rely on this bat shit Congress to make the doctrine law, or legislate every little thing including things they don’t understand at all. 
 

 

[discolé monade]

just sat down to enjoy a meal. and open the news

and find this shite?

we are so fucking screwed. wtf....just wtf. jfc. wtf?

and killed my got damned buzz.

Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s historic decision granting Donald Trump immunity

[katt_goddess]

Who is going to be really really sad when whatever yacht or vacation jet Supreme Justice Uncle Ruckus hops on during the recess sinks/crashes/Bermuda Triangles itself?  

[tsar4]

Don't get why everyone is upset.  

Biden: "I hereby declare that Donald Trump is barred for life from running for POTUS.  This decision is to protect the Constitution of the United States of America and within what the SCOTUS has decided is immune from prosecution.  I furthermore declare the MAGA movement a terrorist entity."

[Master-Debater131]

5 hours ago, scoobdog said:

That would be logically false.  For the same reason that Congress would not have to defer to anyone, neither should the Executive or Judicial branchs.  Checks and Balances work through amendments not through retractions - you don't take power from one branch because that branch has no more or less power than you.  By forcing the DoE, DoI, or the DoA to cosign a regulation, you're giving final arbitration for mechanisms assigned to the Executive branch to Congress.  Rather, it should be on Congress to address a regulation after the fact by passing a law that supersedes it.

It's not on scientists to craft regulations that Congress will approve, it's on Congress to address those regulations by creating laws that make them moot.

That is, quite literally, the exact opposite of how our government works.

Congress creates laws and regulations, the Executive branch enforces them, and the Legislative branch interprets the law.

Nowhere in our constitution does the Executive branch have the ability to create laws or regulations. Any of those agencies can give their recommendations to Congress, and then its up to Congress to decide if they are something that should be written into law and govern the life of Americans.

Not some unelected bureaucrat, not a random alphabet agency, but Congress.

Its just remarkable how hard of a concept this seems to be for the Left. The reason is pretty clear, but its just crazy how open everyone is with this.

[tsar4]

29 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

That is, quite literally, the exact opposite of how our government works.

Congress creates laws and regulations, the Executive branch enforces them, and the Legislative branch interprets the law.

Nowhere in our constitution does the Executive branch have the ability to create laws or regulations. Any of those agencies can give their recommendations to Congress, and then its up to Congress to decide if they are something that should be written into law and govern the life of Americans.

Not some unelected bureaucrat, not a random alphabet agency, but Congress.

Its just remarkable how hard of a concept this seems to be for the Left. The reason is pretty clear, but its just crazy how open everyone is with this.

I think you meant Congress (Legislative)... and the Judicial branch interprets the law.

[scoobdog]

1 hour ago, Master-Debater131 said:

That is, quite literally, the exact opposite of how our government works.

Congress creates laws and regulations, the Executive branch enforces them, and the Legislative branch interprets the law.

Let's unpack this.

What do you think the founding fathers meant by creating laws and regulations (your words)?  For instance, did you think that they expected the post master to come to them and determine how he was going to deliver mail?  You're deliberately misrepresenting what's going on by suggesting that regulations include how government agencies do their jobs.  So, it's now up to Congress to tell the DOT what speed limits they should set for Interstates.  Or, now Congress alone can decide how and where the ACoE builds levy, and what the design specs for them should be.

Since you conveniently forgot wha the original decision was about - Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) was a landmark decision where the Supreme Court held that federal agencies had the authority to interpret existing law in designing their regulations.  It was specifically meant to say that once Congress enacted law (the Clean Air Act) with the approval of the President of course, the agencies defined in that law were seen as having the technical knowledge to determine how the parameters set forth by the law are implemented.  It says nothing about countering the established law, just interpreting the law in a way that it sees fit.  If Congress does not specify how to implement the law (which it won't because that's too specific for any law), than the agency that's a part of the executive branch does not need to go back to them to craft the regulation of that law.

The executive branch isn't creating law, it creating a regulation within the confines of an existing law.  Except, now the Supreme Court is saying that the executive branch does not have the authority to do the job its legally given without also having being told how to do that job.  I can't begin to express how asinine that is, especially from a Congress populated by whores, pedophiles, and spineless sycophants.

[Top Gun]

The fact is that people who are experts in a particular field should be allowed to use that expertise to apply regulations relating to said field. Hell, in my fantasy dictator-for-a-day scenario, only experts would be able to craft policy related to their field in the first place. Certainly not dumb rednecks elected by other dumb rednecks.

[MasqueradeOverture]

Seal Team 6 is getting a workout during Trump's administration.

[1pooh4u]

13 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

That is, quite literally, the exact opposite of how our government works.

Congress creates laws and regulations, the Executive branch enforces them, and the Legislative branch interprets the law.

Nowhere in our constitution does the Executive branch have the ability to create laws or regulations. Any of those agencies can give their recommendations to Congress, and then its up to Congress to decide if they are something that should be written into law and govern the life of Americans.

Not some unelected bureaucrat, not a random alphabet agency, but Congress.

Its just remarkable how hard of a concept this seems to be for the Left. The reason is pretty clear, but its just crazy how open everyone is with this.

Congress is the legislative branch of government the judicial branch interprets the laws and the executive branch enforces the laws that the President is no longer bound by 

and again the chevron doctrine was a deference by the courts to allow experts to decide regulations. It’s why our waters are cleaner and why we don’t use lead paint and asbestos. The demise of the doctrine gives power back to courts to decide things where language and laws by congress are absent.  It’s not courts deferring to Congress and waiting for them to legislate it’s courts deferring to no one. Congress was always allowed to legislate.  At least the doctrine offered some protection against stupidity and greed but since they weren’t elected let’s go back to days when we could stuff mattresses with garbage (and sell them) and when rats walked freely and in large numbers around food processing facilities 

[Belize]

Firstly, this is an awful Supreme Court decision. Confirms the Roberts court is the worst since the court that imposed Dred Scott on the country. Presidents should not have *any* immunity from criminal prosecution. We should criminally prosecute presidents more often. 

 

That said, Trump is still going to be put on trial for Jan. 6. For the parts of the events that are *not* under this immunity rule (trying to force Mike Pence to stop the certification of the election, pressuring state officials to overturn the election). 

[1pooh4u]

2 hours ago, Belize said:

Firstly, this is an awful Supreme Court decision. Confirms the Roberts court is the worst since the court that imposed Dred Scott on the country. Presidents should not have *any* immunity from criminal prosecution. We should criminally prosecute presidents more often. 

 

That said, Trump is still going to be put on trial for Jan. 6. For the parts of the events that are *not* under this immunity rule (trying to force Mike Pence to stop the certification of the election, pressuring state officials to overturn the election). 

I thought they used Trump’s interactions with and concerning Pence as an example of what he’s within his scope of duties as President?

[Top Gun]

2 hours ago, Belize said:

Firstly, this is an awful Supreme Court decision. Confirms the Roberts court is the worst since the court that imposed Dred Scott on the country. Presidents should not have *any* immunity from criminal prosecution. We should criminally prosecute presidents more often.

I saw that part of the decision said something like, "If presidents were not immune, then nearly every president would face prosecution after they left office."

Me: "I see no problems here."

[discolé monade]

fuck any argument using 'rule of law'.

is anyone else really dreading any of this? or am i blowing shit out of proportion in my head? because i don't feel like i'm doing that, and that i have the exact right amount of fear, for varying reasons.

[Blackrose321]

I saw that AOC said she plans to file articles of impeachment but my hope for that accomplishing anything is in the trash. Republicans have been trying to stage a coup for decades and the Dems that came before were asleep at the wheel while it built up. I mean, Barry Goldwater was hardly a good guy and even he said:

Quote

"When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." 

Quote

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

These quotes are from 1994!

Anyone got any words of encouragement or would that require lying to me? 

[Jman]

I think you can run on that if you’re smart.  “No kings, no Emperors, no unelected tyrants.”  Run on enshrining all the shit that the GOP ignored because everyone assumed it was in good faith.

Edited July 2 by Jman

[1pooh4u]

Impeachment is the only way, I guess, to punish a President. They’re above the law now, well, at least Trump is. It’s not like Biden could assassinate Trump as an official duty for the good of the country. Lower court would probably say that doesn’t fall under official duties but c’mon. Ofc it is. President’s do fucked up shit all the time. It’s part of what makes them age in dog years when they’re President.  Trump didn’t age that much cuz he’s a psycho dbag without a conscience 

[scoobdog]

7 hours ago, Belize said:

Firstly, this is an awful Supreme Court decision. Confirms the Roberts court is the worst since the court that imposed Dred Scott on the country. Presidents should not have *any* immunity from criminal prosecution. We should criminally prosecute presidents more often. 

I don't really agree with that last part.  Having a Commander in Chief being held responsible for a casualty event, even if it was based on bad intel or extenuating circumstances, is still highly problematic.  For instance, conceivably an unscrupulous Republican prosecutor could prosecute Biden as an accessory if a criminal sneaks across the border and murders a citizen.  Immunity has to exist in some form, regardless of the moral quagmires it might create, because the absence of it leads to the actual weaponization of the criminal system as envisioned by the same bastards who claim the system is being weaponized against Trump.  Some morally repugnant rules exist because we can't always guarantee that our system of checks and balances is administered by those who are both intellectually and morally capable.

That being said, @Raptorpatwarned us about this decisions a long time ago - the SCOTUS was always going to sidestep the actual question by simply saying that the President would continue to be immune from official acts while failing to actually defined what an official act is.

[1pooh4u]

Perhaps we should all die holding our breath waiting for Congress to legislate what acts are to be considered official and which are not. I stand by what I said before. The founders of the country would never ever have wanted the decision the court made yesterday. Those so called originalists should know that.  

[Raptorpat]

4 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

Impeachment is the only way, I guess, to punish a President.

And as jingai was fond of saying, impeachment is political. Which means the only way to punish a president requires them to lose support within their own party. If they have the support of their own voters/politicians then there's nothing.

[1pooh4u]

Just now, Raptorpat said:

And as jingai was fond of saying, impeachment is political. Which means the only way to punish a president requires them to lose support within their own party. If they have the support of their own voters/politicians then there's nothing.

Just as our founders intended  /s

[tsar4]

Legal experts predict SCOTUS will overturn its own ruling...

[1pooh4u]

21 minutes ago, tsar4 said:

Legal experts predict SCOTUS will overturn its own ruling...

We’ll be dead and never see that happen 

[Sieg67]

On 7/2/2024 at 7:27 PM, tsar4 said:

Legal experts predict SCOTUS will overturn its own ruling...

https://morelle.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-joe-morelle-authoring-constitutional-amendment-reverse-us-supreme

 

 

[1pooh4u]

1 hour ago, Sieg67 said:

https://morelle.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-joe-morelle-authoring-constitutional-amendment-reverse-us-supreme

 

 

It’s something but I don’t think that’s gonna work. It’s not the hardest thing, amending our constitution, but it’s also not that simpler. Especially in these times 

[Sieg67]

On 6/30/2024 at 9:55 AM, Blackrose321 said:

Not boomer at all. The internet allowed me to make much-needed connections at a time when I was very isolated, but it was a different beast 20 years ago. It's so out of control now that I've limited my use of it. I come here every so often to see what's going on, I check Facebook every few weeks to see if anyone has messaged me, and I only check Reddit every few days when I'm bored, and only briefly. Instagram is for watching pet videos, I never used Twitter, etc.

I just can't stand the way people interact online and, consequently, offline. There's constant bickering to the point that it's obviously what many people are looking for when they go online. They'll intentionally misread what you write just to be argumentative. You can't get a straight answer to a single damn question, and the majority of people don't bother to think for themselves or do actual research. They'll sit there with a full fucking computer in the palm of their hand and spread misinformation because they're too grossly lazy to run a google search. The likes and fights are the point, and I consider that an inferior mindset to operate from so I don't engage anymore.

On that note, future generations won't inherit anything useful from their elders. No words of wisdom, no kindness, no empathy. They'll get trollspeak. But you bet your ass these "elders" will still expect respect from young people because they worked damn hard sitting on their ass scrolling through TikTok videos!

What an abject shame.

This post is going to concern a few comments and not just the one I'm quoting.

I've thought quite a bit about the internet's connection to what seems like an increase in trashy behavior but never really put anything into words.  There are a lot of elements and nuances to consider.  Accessibility, tribalism, egotism, narcissism, validation, dopamine, willful ignorance, naivety and education to name a few. 

Naivety and lack of critical thinking makes misinformation easily digestible.  Everything is easily accessible online.    It doesn't take much to find people that have the similar views.  I'm sure I don't have to explain what an echo-chamber is.  Egotism leads to willful ignorance.  Nobody wants to admit that they're wrong and will latch onto that misinformation and not let go. They'll move goal posts or outright deny objective facts. Tribalism also plays a big part in this.  Once they're in their echo-chamber, it becomes "Us vs Them."  At this point, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong.  They want their side to win and will cut off their nose to spite their face.  

Like an child acting out for attention, some people will do anything for clout or views.  The world has become a much smaller place since the rise of the internet.  There is no shortage of people who will encourage asshatery online.  I believe that in observing these large groups, it becomes normalized and more people start viewing it as acceptable.  Suddenly trashy behavior is viewed favorably and is mimicked. It becomes cool.

 

I think our education system do can more to help.  Teach critical thinking below college level, teach etiquette, teach respect, consideration and mental fortification.  Teach the importance of being that best version of you that you can be.  I feel sorry for teachers nowadays.  Something has to be done to counteract the culture of shitty behavior and narcissism.  Of course the Right hates education.  They want people to be ignorant and selfish so they'll work against their own self interests.  They want a population that will take their propaganda hook, line and sinker.




I'm just some guy who's looking at the world through a monitor, though.  Maybe the increase of cameras and the availability of endless content just makes the world seem worse.  Maybe I wasn't paying as much attention before.

 

Edited July 4 by Sieg67

[Dark_Cloud_Overhead]

On 7/2/2024 at 11:52 AM, discolé monade said:

fuck any argument using 'rule of law'.

is anyone else really dreading any of this? or am i blowing shit out of proportion in my head? because i don't feel like i'm doing that, and that i have the exact right amount of fear, for varying reasons.

If anything, I'd say you're not being fearful enough about all the nightmare scenarios this idiocy enables. I'd be shatting my pants but for the misanthrope in me which just loves watching humanity destroy itself.

These couple of decisions are basically all about amassing as much power as possible in the court's hands and that of any future Republican president (cuz let's face it, no democratic party president is gonna be the type of person who'd abuse this power, and even if they did the democratic party would turn on them and remove them from office, unlike the members of the republican autocratic party who'd just block any attempt to impeach and convict as they've done twice already). The thing about concentrating a ton of power in one place though is that when you do that... yeah, things tend to go boom.