Inspectors General Refuse Trumps Illegal Firing Order

[Marener]

So the State making murder illegal is taking away your ability to murder without consequence? And that's a bad thing?

We all agree murder is illegal.

If SCOTUS said the second amendment doesn’t apply to semiautomatic handguns, does that give the people more power? Or less?

 

[daveman]

The post you’re replying to was not about Roe. It was about Trump’s desire to have the states resubmit electors in the 2020 election.

Okay. Sorry. Disregard my previous.

 

[daveman]

He's confusing his different bitchy-screeds.

No, that one was all my confusion. Mea culpa, which is Latin for "my bad".

 

[Marener]

Okay. Sorry. Disregard my previous.

Thanks. You’re a good egg.

 

[martybegan]

We all agree murder is illegal.

If SCOTUS said the second amendment doesn’t apply to semiautomatic handguns, does that give the people more power? Or less?

You aren't arguing the point, you are arguing semantics.

Roe wrongly said Abortion is a right. Dobbs fixed that. Now the States can figure it out,

You want to make abortion a federal right? get an amendment passed.

If SCOTUS said that it would be just as bad as Roe and Plessey.

 

[martybegan]

No, that one was all my confusion. Mea culpa, which is Latin for "my bad".

He's still a whiny little *****.

 

[Orangecat]

Laws are all but meaningless.

Especially if your last name is Biden.

 

[Marener]

You aren't arguing the point, you are arguing semantics.

Roe wrongly said Abortion is a right. Dobbs fixed that. Now the States can figure it out,

You want to make abortion a federal right? get an amendment passed.

If SCOTUS said that it would be just as bad as Roe and Plessey.

Im arguing your semantics are delusional. In your world, taking away a right is actually giving people more power. That’s doublespeak. Very Orwellian, Marty.

Did we need an amendment to invent presidential immunity? Did we need an amendment to remove birthright citizenship? Did we need an amendment to invent major questions doctrine?

Nope.

 

[martybegan]

Im arguing your semantics are delusional. In your world, taking away a right is actually giving people more power. That’s doublespeak. Very Orwellian, Marty.

Did we need an amendment to invent presidential immunity? Did we need an amendment to remove birthright citizenship? Did we need an amendment to invent major questions doctrine?

Nope.

Abortion isn't a right.

It was always there, just never questioned until recently.
We might, but I think we can eliminate it going forward with clarification on what "under the jurisdiction thereof" actually means in the context of illegal aliens. If we want to get rid of it going back, we would need an amendment to get around ex post facto bans.
Your last blathering statement isn't specific, try again.

 

[Marener]

Abortion isn't a right.

It was always there, just never questioned until recently.
We might, but I think we can eliminate it going forward with clarification on what "under the jurisdiction thereof" actually means in the context of illegal aliens. If we want to get rid of it going back, we would need an amendment to get around ex post facto bans.
Your last blathering statement isn't specific, try again.

If presidential immunity is in the constitution, so is abortion.

 

[martybegan]

If presidential immunity is in the constitution, so is abortion.

Immunity is given in the Constitution by the fact that only the House can impeach a President, and only the Senate can remove him from office, both for criminal acts.

He isn't immune, he is just only responsible to the Legislature if he does something illegal.

 

[Marener]

Immunity is given in the Constitution by the fact that only the House can impeach a President, and only the Senate can remove him from office, both for criminal acts.

Has absolutely nothing to do with presidential immunity.

He isn't immune, he is just only responsible to the Legislature if he does something illegal.

Legislature can’t prosecute him criminally.

Presidential immunity doesn’t have anything to do with the impeachment clause. They just invented it because the sycophants think the president can’t be bothered with having to worry about following laws like the rest of us losers.

 

[martybegan]

Has absolutely nothing to do with presidential immunity.

Legislature can’t prosecute him criminally.

Presidential immunity doesn’t have anything to do with the impeachment clause. They just invented it because the sycophants think the president can’t be bothered with having to worry about following laws like the rest of us losers.

it has everything to do with it.

How could a President do his job if every State AG could try to arrest him when he did something the State didn't like?

 

[Orangecat]

The executive duties are to execute the laws written by Congress.

Like deport illegals?

The mind reels.

If you had one, it certainly would.

 

[Orangecat]

That's up to the Supreme Court to figure out, if the Dems want to fight Trump on this.

Obviously the legions of useful idiots intend on fighting him on every nomination, action, and anything else their pea-brains can get all riled up over.

 

[martybegan]

Obviously the legions of useful idiots intend on fighting him on every nomination, action, and anything else their pea-brains can get all riled up over.

That is there right, as long as they follow the rules doing so.

Also Republicans seem to be figuring out the bullshit tactics, like the whole thing with the Air Force not teaching about the Tuskegee Airmen as a response to Trump eliminating DEI.

Trump and co came down HARD on the people trying that bullshit.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If you want to have any kind of credibility you at least need to acknowledge firing 17 IG's without cause is not routine as trump claims. It is, in fact, against the law written to prevent these apolitical inspectors for being fired without justification.

The law only requires 30 days notice to Congress. That only applies when the unwanted IGs don't have the grace to simply resign.

Reagan fired all of the holdover IG's. He's the one for Trump to beat for greatest president in the modern age.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Marener]

it has everything to do with it.

How could a President do his job if every State AG could try to arrest him when he did something the State didn't like?

Because AGs can’t arrest people for doing something they don’t like, dipshit.

Last I checked we are a nation of laws. If the country is so broken that anyone can be arrested anytime for any reason, then we got problems way bigger than a made up presidential immunity can fix.

 

[BackAgain]

That “law” is facially UNconstitutional.

Stand by.

This news is just breaking:

The fired IG’s are still fired.

Edited too late.