The attempt to Usurp the supreme Court will fail.

[kyzr]

1. Funny. I didn’t even mention his phone call to Raffensperger. You managed to ignore everything I did say.

2. Sounds like you’re saying Trump had a lot of power to use funds to do what he wanted. The mere fact that the president has authority over the entire military, DoJ and foreign policy is sufficient admit his board power. That’s not even getting into his authority over the NSA, CIA, DHS. Hell, he can even control the FCC. Remember when he said he wanted to take away broadcast licenses of people he didn’t like?

3. Again, the case before Merchan is not related to presidential authority and you think it’ll be overturned anyway. He would be unlikely to be imprisoned pending appeal anyway. So this decision doesn’t matter to this case, and even if it did, you think the case wouldn’t be successful at doing the thing you want immunity to prevent.

4. Did Vance say he would have overturned the 2020 election?

Trump has cronies and in a second term of office, he’s only going to accumulate more and more of them.

1. You said what Trump "tried" to do. He didn't do.
2. Trump legitimately used approved fund to build the wall. Biden illegally forgave student loans.
3. Unlikely to be imprisoned? Hilarious.
4. Kamala will count EC votes so she loses? We'll see.
JD wouldn't have succeeded in holding up the vote count, 99 senators would have taken the gavel off him.

 

[justoffal]

The Supreme Court is already a joke. It needs changing, not in the way the dems or reps want though.

Justices need approval from BOTH PARTIES>

Hmmm.....I like it!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I understand what you're saying and I have some sympathy for your position. I wish it wasn't that way but I am convinced that unless you keep the immunity no president will be able to sit in the seat for more than a few months. It would more or less render elections null and void.

Keep the "immunity while in office" but leave them open to face questions after they leave office

 

[justoffal]

Keep the "immunity while in office" but leave them open to face questions after they leave office

Yeah....maybe something like that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yeah....maybe something like that.

Would it be so bad if Obama had to justify droning an American citizen?

Or if Reagan and Bush I had to explain all the shit they pulled in Panama?

 

[justoffal]

Would it be so bad if Obama had to justify droning an American citizen?

Or if Reagan and Bush I had to explain all the shit they pulled in Panama?

Obviously something is needed

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Obviously something is needed

But now it is all off the table, thanks to SCOTUS.

And then there is the SCOTUS...should there not be some sort of Code of Conduct for them?

 

[justoffal]

But now it is all off the table, thanks to SCOTUS.

And then there is the SCOTUS...should there not be some sort of Code of Conduct for them?

Nobody should be free from some form of restraint.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nobody should be free from some form of restraint.

Indeed. And we either trust the SCOTUS to police itself, or one of the other branches will have to be involved. I do not really go for self policing.

 

[Marener]

1. You said what Trump "tried" to do. He didn't do.
2. Trump legitimately used approved fund to build the wall. Biden illegally forgave student loans.
3. Unlikely to be imprisoned? Hilarious.
4. Kamala will count EC votes so she loses? We'll see.
JD wouldn't have succeeded in holding up the vote count, 99 senators would have taken the gavel off him.

1. Fails to address the point that his attempts were corrupt and illegal. If you don't have a problem with him trying to change the outcome of the election, then you clearly don't have a problem with him succeeding.

2. Fails to address the point that the presidency has expansive powers.

3. Fails to address the point that people who are appealing their conviction remain out of prison.

4. Fails to address the point that Trump has been collecting cronies to do his bidding. Vance is one example of this. There are many more.

It's interesting you expect people in government to refuse to obey legal orders but you don't expect the president to not give illegal orders.

 

[kyzr]

1. Fails to address the point that his attempts were corrupt and illegal. If you don't have a problem with him trying to change the outcome of the election, then you clearly don't have a problem with him succeeding.

2. Fails to address the point that the presidency has expansive powers.

3. Fails to address the point that people who are appealing their conviction remain out of prison.

4. Fails to address the point that Trump has been collecting cronies to do his bidding. Vance is one example of this. There are many more.

It's interesting you expect people in government to refuse to obey legal orders but you don't expect the president to not give illegal orders.

1. The system worked. If he broke any laws outside his official duties he can be prosecuted.

2. The Constitution defines presidential powers.

3. The system works as its supposed to. Innocent until proven guilty.

4. The system has checks and balances. Cronies can try to do stuff, but they won't succeed, never have. FDR tried.

5. People in government will refuse to obey illegal orders.
If the president gives illegal orders he will be impeached and removed if the Senate agrees that the charges are serious.

 

[ReinyDays]

What's the difference...??? Warrants are only a matter of finding a sympathetic judge.

Really ... you're allowed to shop around for a bought-off judge? ... honestly, I've had the opposite experience, the sympathetic judge is my worst enemy ... I'd rather have a judge who didn't care at all and will simply rule on who pissed him off the most ... and let the opposition babble on hahahahah ...

Do you have any case law to support your position? ... something that failed on appeal ...

Nixon set wire taps without probable cause ... and that policy was explicit, no probable cause ... you think this is legal because the President has immunity from the 5th Amendment ... that immunity extends down the line, so why bother with that stupid 5th Amendment? ...

Is that the country you want? ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What corruption?

You haven't read anything about Thomas's corruption?

Then why are you even commenting? Go read up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

1. The system worked. If he broke any laws outside his official duties he can be prosecuted.

The system clearly did not work, as it allows this corruption.

 

[marvin martian]

There is still enough sanity in Congress as corrupt as it is to understand that co-equal is co equal. This court is functioning just fine. There have been numerous decisions showing that the justices on the court value jurisprudence more than they do political separation.

None more outstanding than the 9 to 0 decision to block state supreme courts from eliminating Trump from the ballot.

Kavanaugh has made a number of liberal decisions. Jackson Brown has made a number of conservative decisions.

The court is healthy. It wasn't healthy when the prune was there. She had a larger than life presence and a disdain for the Constitution.

Jackson Brown has been something of a pleasant surprise frankly. Perhaps a disappointment to the left.

Jo

It will fail, but it will succeed in showing the DemoKKKrats as the insurrectionists they are.

The DemoKKKrats' push to attack and dismantle our judicial system is being funded by China and Russia.

 

[Cellblock2429]

There is still enough sanity in Congress as corrupt as it is to understand that co-equal is co equal. This court is functioning just fine. There have been numerous decisions showing that the justices on the court value jurisprudence more than they do political separation.

None more outstanding than the 9 to 0 decision to block state supreme courts from eliminating Trump from the ballot.

Kavanaugh has made a number of liberal decisions. Jackson Brown has made a number of conservative decisions.

The court is healthy. It wasn't healthy when the prune was there. She had a larger than life presence and a disdain for the Constitution.

Jackson Brown has been something of a pleasant surprise frankly. Perhaps a disappointment to the left.

Jo

/—-/ democRATs keep changing the rules until they lock in their power permanently.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

/—-/ democRATs keep changing the rules until they lock in their power permanently.

- No SCOTUS appointments 9 months before an election!

- Just Kidding! Say hi, Judge Barrett!

GTFO here with your nonsense.

 

[kyzr]

The system clearly did not work, as it allows this corruption.

Then prosecute him. If you can't then there was no corruption, duh.

 

[dudmuck]

/—-/ democRATs keep changing the rules until they lock in their power permanently.

the same rules apply to everyone.

 

[kyzr]

the same rules apply to everyone.

Stupid meme. Read the Constitution dumbass.