US Politics Thread

[Sabrefan1]

17 minutes ago, DSVII said:

Does this mean in theory Biden can just order the dissolution of the Supreme Court right now because he has full immunity on unofficial acts?

 

There's no immunity for unofficial acts.  The president doesn't have the authority to dissolve SCOTUS in order for it to be official.

 

In fact, if the Republicans take the Presidency and the Senate and then follow the Democrat plan of ending the filibuster and SCOTUS expansion that Sinema and Manchin stopped, Trump will be able to put 3 more justices on SCOTUS to match the number of districts.

[Elias Pettersson]

41 minutes ago, DSVII said:

Does this mean in theory Biden can just order the dissolution of the Supreme Court right now because he has full immunity on unofficial acts?

 

The US isn't a dictatorship.  The executive branch can't just wipe out the judicial branch.  Also, the Supreme Court ruled that a President only has absolute immunity on official acts.  So the lower courts will now have to determine what is an official act versus an unofficial act...

[Boudrias]

6 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

The US isn't a dictatorship.  The executive branch can't just wipe out the judicial branch.  Also, the Supreme Court ruled that a President only has absolute immunity on official acts.  So the lower courts will now have to determine what is an official act versus an unofficial act...

American institutions are strong enough to withstand the politicians who come and go. The current situation is not unique to American history. Hopefully Americans will seriously reflect on their values and make sound choices. Both Democrats and Republicans have been quite willing to risk the integrity of their country for political advantage. Canada isn't that different.

 

No matter which party is running things after November the ugly reality of how government debt will be financed has to be addressed. The USA might struggle to find buyers of their debt. The cost will definitely be going up. The same situation exists in Canada.  

[NewbieCanuckFan]

32 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

There's no immunity for unofficial acts.  The president doesn't have the authority to dissolve SCOTUS in order for it to be official.

 

In fact, if the Republicans take the Presidency and the Senate and then follow the Democrat plan of ending the filibuster and SCOTUS expansion that Sinema and Manchin stopped, Trump will be able to put 3 more justices on SCOTUS to match the number of districts.

A fat/overweight elderly man that likes munching down Baconators daily will find battling cholestoral a far tougher opponent than the other guy who should be in a nursing home.

[Warhippy]

19 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

The US isn't a dictatorship. 

Yet

[Sabrefan1]

5 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

A fat/overweight elderly man that likes munching down Baconators daily will find battling cholestoral a far tougher opponent than the other guy who should be in a nursing home.

 

Biden still has a chance, just a poorer one than pre-debate. 

 

Pre-debate, I thought RFK jr. was going to get more Republican votes, post-debate, I think it will likely be about even or he'll get more Democrat votes.

 

Biden did dig himself a tougher hole to climb out of, but his saving grace was that this debate came ridiculously early and the American public has a short attention span.

 

Keep an eye on the swing state polls.  Especially states like Virginia and Pennsylvania.

[Sabrefan1]

aaaand I just made the mistake of opening Twitter.  They're talking like it will be up to a president as to what an official act is... Nope, the courts and possibly to a lesser extent Congress will decide.

 

When Obama killed an American terrorist (I forget his name) in the Middle East, technically that was murder.  However that was an official act committed by a president in the line of the duty of his office.  Dude needed to die because he was a danger to this country, so Obama sent missiles up the American terrorist's arse and did his job.

[Elias Pettersson]

2 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said:

aaaand I just made the mistake of opening Twitter.  They're talking like it will be up to a president as to what an official act is... Nope, the courts and possibly to a lesser extent Congress will decide.

 

When Obama killed an American terrorist (I forget his name) in the Middle East, technically that was murder.  However that was an official act committed by a president in the line of the duty of his office.  Dude needed to die because he was a danger to this country, so Obama sent missiles up the American terrorist's arse and did his job.

 

I believe this is why the Supreme Court ruled the way they did.  If they didn't, then you'd have former Presidents being charged for the exact crime you mentioned.  There had to be a distinction.  Only issue is who will decide what an official act is.  My guess is the lower courts will decide and then it will go to appeal to the Supreme Court, who will ultimately make the decision.  

 

If Trump were to get re-elected, he could use this ruling to have his AG go after former Presidents, i.e. Biden, and then let the courts decide what is an official act.

[Gurn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/expect-a-visit-chilling-words-from-trump-rep-raise-specter-of-political-assassination/ar-BB1pe2tn?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=d5b4a89f13db4870a771d78ba36ff942&ei=15

"

Ayoung activist interpreted Justice Sonia Sotomayor's chilling warning that the Supreme Court just authorized presidents to conduct political assassinations on social media — and received an equally chilling reply from former President Donald Trump's spokesperson.

"According to the Supreme Court, Biden could now send in Seal Team 6 to take all of them out," wrote Harry Sisson. "He could send in the military to take out Trump."

Replied campaign advisor Chris LaCivita, "Expect a Visit…."

 

This disturbing exchange was made possible by the recent Supreme Court ruling that Trump enjoyed presidential immunity when he urged Justice department officials to help him overturn the 2020 presidential election.

The 6-3 vote was strongly dissented by justices Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson who warned the majority had dismantled a key component of American democracy.

"Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune," wrote Sotomayor.

"It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."

LaCivita's response to Sisson's interpretation of this message can be read in multiple ways.

---------------------------

mal

[The Arrogant Worms]

Trump posted on LieSocial today that Liz Cheney should be tried for treason.

[Sabrefan1]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

If Trump were to get re-elected, he could use this ruling to have his AG go after former Presidents, i.e. Biden, and then let the courts decide what is an official act.

 

If he goes after Biden, it will be for taking classified papers for when he was VP.  Today's ruling doesn't cover VP's.

[Sabrefan1]

32 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Trump posted on LieSocial today that Liz Cheney should be tried for treason.

 

No surprise.  They hate each other.

[Elias Pettersson]

5 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

If he goes after Biden, it will be for taking classified papers for when he was VP.  Today's ruling doesn't cover VP's.

 

I'm sure there are things that could come to fruition after the fact.  Trump's classified case didn't happen until after he left office.

[Sabrefan1]

38 minutes ago, Gurn said:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/expect-a-visit-chilling-words-from-trump-rep-raise-specter-of-political-assassination/ar-BB1pe2tn?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=d5b4a89f13db4870a771d78ba36ff942&ei=15

"

Ayoung activist interpreted Justice Sonia Sotomayor's chilling warning that the Supreme Court just authorized presidents to conduct political assassinations on social media — and received an equally chilling reply from former President Donald Trump's spokesperson.

"According to the Supreme Court, Biden could now send in Seal Team 6 to take all of them out," wrote Harry Sisson. "He could send in the military to take out Trump."

Replied campaign advisor Chris LaCivita, "Expect a Visit…."

 

This disturbing exchange was made possible by the recent Supreme Court ruling that Trump enjoyed presidential immunity when he urged Justice department officials to help him overturn the 2020 presidential election.

The 6-3 vote was strongly dissented by justices Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson who warned the majority had dismantled a key component of American democracy.

"Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune," wrote Sotomayor.

"It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."

LaCivita's response to Sisson's interpretation of this message can be read in multiple ways.

---------------------------

mal

 

On first read, it sounds like the moronic spokesperson meant a visit by the FBI/Secret Service.  Since no threat was made, the spokesperson just proves he's a moron.

 

I think we all know that Trump doesn't hire the best people as he claims.  Unless he's in the White House, the best have much better options than working for him.  That's why he's screwed when the lame duck portion of any potential 2nd term hits.  The people that took jobs for their resume will scatter to better positions, most likely, for whoever the Republicans would put up to replace Trump in '29.

 

As for the crying Justice Sotomayor, she went full on drama queen in her dissent.  She used examples that were born on social media knowing full well that was not what the majority ruling was allowing.  It was weird to read.  She's brilliant, but she's extremely emotional.

[Elias Pettersson]

45 minutes ago, Gurn said:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/expect-a-visit-chilling-words-from-trump-rep-raise-specter-of-political-assassination/ar-BB1pe2tn?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=d5b4a89f13db4870a771d78ba36ff942&ei=15

"

Ayoung activist interpreted Justice Sonia Sotomayor's chilling warning that the Supreme Court just authorized presidents to conduct political assassinations on social media — and received an equally chilling reply from former President Donald Trump's spokesperson.

"According to the Supreme Court, Biden could now send in Seal Team 6 to take all of them out," wrote Harry Sisson. "He could send in the military to take out Trump."

Replied campaign advisor Chris LaCivita, "Expect a Visit…."

 

This disturbing exchange was made possible by the recent Supreme Court ruling that Trump enjoyed presidential immunity when he urged Justice department officials to help him overturn the 2020 presidential election.

The 6-3 vote was strongly dissented by justices Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson who warned the majority had dismantled a key component of American democracy.

"Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune," wrote Sotomayor.

"It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."

LaCivita's response to Sisson's interpretation of this message can be read in multiple ways.

---------------------------

mal

 

Would those be classified as "official" Presidential acts?  Could the President of the United States simply walk around all day with an AK47 and shoot up whoever he wants?  

 

If the President ordered Seal Team 6 to take out their political opponent, I am sure that would be reviewed by the courts and all the way up to the Supreme Court in order to determine whether or not it was an official Presidential act that was needed to be done in order to protect the country...

[Warhippy]

1 minute ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

On first read, it sounds like the moronic spokesperson meant a visit by the FBI/Secret Service.  Since no threat was made, the spokesperson just proves he's a moron.

 

I think we all know that Trump doesn't hire the best people as he claims.  Unless he's in the White House, the best have much better options than working for him.  That's why he's screwed when the lame duck portion of any potential 2nd term hits.  The people that took jobs for their resume will scatter to better positions, most likely, for whoever the Republicans would put up to replace Trump in '29.

 

As for the crying Justice Sotomayor, she went full on drama queen in her dissent.  She used examples that were born on social media knowing full well that was not what the majority ruling was allowing.  It was weird to read.  She's brilliant, but she's extremely emotional.

But she made a good point.

 

The issue now lies in that Trump can use this ruling to whip up his base.  He can tell them the lock them up BS and as it's an election campaign numerous individuals campainging for the GOP can also use this to whip up the base in to a frenzy,

 

The court of public opinion may only be opinion based but it is also how movements start and if enough people start screaming this and accepting or allowing for this or at the least willing to look the other way while it happens we know here it will lead

[Sabrefan1]

3 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

I'm sure there are things that could come to fruition after the fact.  Trump's classified case didn't happen until after he left office.

 

Honestly, I hope not.  There's little point in beating a dementia/age-ridden horse just out of pure spite.

[Sabrefan1]

33 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

But she made a good point.

 

The issue now lies in that Trump can use this ruling to whip up his base.  He can tell them the lock them up BS and as it's an election campaign numerous individuals campainging for the GOP can also use this to whip up the base in to a frenzy.

 

It doesn't take much to whip extremists into a frenzy.  Trump didn't need this ruling to be able to do that.  That's the danger of large groups of morons.

 

Trump's record on getting his allies elected is far from stellar.  That's why they don't suck up to him like they once did.

 

Quote

The court of public opinion may only be opinion based but it is also how movements start and if enough people start screaming this and accepting or allowing for this or at the least willing to look the other way while it happens we know here it will lead

 

The public is severely divided.  If a Democratic president steps out of line, the right will freak out and vice versa.

 

All the immunity ruling did was restate what has always been accepted.  A president can do things that would otherwise be considered a crime as long as he/she does them in the best interests of the country.

 

Sotomayor's social media example would get a president arrested after he was impeached and removed from office.  Sending in Seal Team 6 to assassinate a rival is not an official act in the best interests of the nation.

 

Obama sending a hellfire missile up an American terrorists arse in order to murder him was most definitely an official act in the best interests of the country.

Edited Monday at 10:09 PM by Sabrefan1
Fixed typo. 2nd edit: added impeach and removed.

[Gurn]

28 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said:

Sending in Seal Team 6 to assassinate a rival is not an official act in the best interests of the nation.

Sure it is--- or could be construed/sold as one 

 

" I sent Seal Team 6 to kill the other guy; because as President I believe he presented a 'clear and present danger' to the future of our country.

His foreign policy would jeopardize many of our trusted inter national partners, and decades worth of international goodwill.

His domestic policy would result in the deaths of many of our poor and disadvantaged citizens, from malnutrition and lack of health care

His energy/pollution policies would result in the death of hundreds of thousands of people from dirty water, air and food.

 

This is/was my honest belief, and I acted as President of the U.S."

 

"p.s. keep in mind that as President I have access to more info, than the general public and 99.5% of all higher up politicians and high titled job holders  Even if people disagree, they are not as qualified as myself to make that determination.".

--------------------------------

And even if people did disagree and charges were somehow filed-the Supremes are likely to side with which ever political side has the majority of judges.--currently the Republicans

------------------------------------

Democracy, hanging by a thread.

Far right extremism, on the rise world wide.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

If people are not very, very careful; we will wake up to a radically different world.

 

 

 

[Sabrefan1]

11 minutes ago, Gurn said:

Sure it is--- or could be construed/sold as one 

 

" I sent Seal Team 6 to kill the other guy; because as President I believe he presented a 'clear and present danger' to the future of our country.

His foreign policy would jeopardize many of our trusted inter national partners, and decades worth of international goodwill.

His domestic policy would result in the deaths of many of our poor and disadvantaged citizens, from malnutrition and lack of health care

His energy/pollution policies would result in the death of hundreds of thousands of people from dirty water, air and food.

 

This is/was my honest belief, and I acted as President of the U.S."

 

"p.s. keep in mind that as President I have access to more info, than the general public and 99.5% of all higher up politicians and high titled job holders  Even if people disagree, they are not as qualified as myself to make that determination.".

--------------------------------

And even if people did disagree and charges were somehow filed-the Supremes are likely to side with which ever political side has the majority of judges.--currently the Republicans

------------------------------------

Democracy, hanging by a thread.

Far right extremism, on the rise world wide.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

If people are not very, very careful; we will wake up to a radically different world.

 

 

The court system would tear any of those arguments apart after the president was arrested once out of office.

[Gurn]

2 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

 

The court system would tear any of those arguments apart after the president was arrested once out of office.

After.

If he decides to leave office, and not just declare some sort of national emergency, that prevents federal elections, until the president decides it's safe to have them again.

Or maybe the president decides that the courts all have to be redone, in accordance with his wishes.

Heck, he could just order the executions of all judges that oppose him.

---------------------------

All those people moved out of Britain to get out from under a 'sole ruler' ; now many clamoring to return to that type of system.

[Sabrefan1]

1 minute ago, Gurn said:

After.

If he decides to leave office, and not just declare some sort of national emergency, that prevents federal elections, until the president decides it's safe to have them again.

Or maybe the president decides that the courts all have to be redone, in accordance with his wishes.

Heck, he could just order the executions of all judges that oppose him.

---------------------------

All those people moved out of Britain to get out from under a 'sole ruler' ; now many clamoring to return to that type of system.

 

 

This ruling isn't what you think it is and what social media is crying about. 

 

The justices really didn't help Trump much.  They laid down a guideline for the lower courts.

 

Most of what Trump has been charged for was done after he was out of office. 

 

The only thing that will save his ass is if he get re-elected and gives himself a pardon before he leaves office. 

 

If he's re-elected, he's going to be back in court after his 4 years are done.  Either for the charges that he's facing now that will be brought back or for having to litigate whether pardoning himself is constitutional.

 

------------

 

This ruling doesn't help Trump like people think it does.  There's just a temper tantrum going on because the court is no longer as liberal as it was for decades.

 

Now that there is a conservative majority on the bench, they will remake the country into what aligns with their beliefs just like the liberal justices did over the decades that they held sway.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

 

[Nbin]

4 hours ago, Sabrefan1 said:

aaaand I just made the mistake of opening Twitter.  They're talking like it will be up to a president as to what an official act is... Nope, the courts and possibly to a lesser extent Congress will decide.

 

When Obama killed an American terrorist (I forget his name) in the Middle East, technically that was murder.  However that was an official act committed by a president in the line of the duty of his office.  Dude needed to die because he was a danger to this country, so Obama sent missiles up the American terrorist's arse and did his job.

Would it be the same if Trump did it on American soil to democratic ‘terrorists’? 

Edited Tuesday at 12:26 AM by Nbin

[Cerridwen]