Fuck Oprah. She’s an out of touch Billionaire who’s commitment to junk science set Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil loose on the world and gave Jenny McArthy a platform for her anti-vax autism bullshit. She’s absolutely not who we want running for president.
Both. Within the last week.
They’re altering the fabric of our rule of law to protect Trump. Bribery? It’s cool as long as it’s AFTER the politician carries out the request. President does anything illegal (including killing a political rival (sorry, Traitor!) or selling state secrets to Russia for example… as long as it’s “official” (and SCOTUS rules what is and isn’t “official”) - it’s all good.
If Trump wins we are one Reichstag Fire away from a complete fascist dictatorship and frankly it may not even take that. Trump already “liked” a couple of posts suggesting military tribunals and firing squads for Biden, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and anyone else he finds disloyal or having persecuted him… And he’s said he’ll be a dictator on day one. If someone tells you who they are, believe them.
Apologies if it came off that way. Truly meant that as a generalization and pretty much include myself in the snark if it matters at this point…
not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller
BTW, I never called you this. I was making an arbitrary comparison to any number of us having a conversation about the ruling and saying “not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller” compared to “a sitting SCOTUS jurist who dissented” in terms of “we better pay attention”
I think you were downvoted because your post implies you agree with the majority. You have clarified it by saying:
[you agree with] conclusion that it was the wrong ruling.
Probably should have started with that.
I responded more directly since your ire seems to be pointed at me.
was this ruling incorrect
Yes. The decision is fundamentally flawed and if the US survives this, it will be discussed in law reviews for decades to come.
If so, how do you square that with the majority of justices ruling that way
Are you presuming that a reactionary majority in SCOTUS ruling something squares with “correct”? Setting that aside for a second, I’ll answer it by saying their decision makes it legal for the president to commit crimes in an official capacity, and that decision is wholesale incorrect by virtually any standard other than “Conservative Party go Brrrrr”. Say that out loud a few times: “it’s legal for the President to commit crimes in an official capacity”. This is defacto opening to kingship / authoritarianism. If you go read the entire constitution (it’s pretty short) and you’ll recognize that these same 6 jurists cannot back this decision up with anything remotely resembling what the constitution says. It goes against all of the language holding our government officials accountable to the law. So yes… I square it quite easily by saying that all 6 of the majority decision jurists are wrong and just because it’s a majority doesn’t make them right.
Or do you as a fellow armchair ianal basement dweller get special privileges when it comes to your legal opinions vs that if scotus judges?
This argument doesn’t go as hard as you think. My whole point centered around the fact that you shouldn’t pay attention to me, but that you should pay attention to the dissent WITHIN THE SUPREME COURT itself. My opinion here truly doesn’t matter (which I suppose negates my first to responses above, but you asked…) but Sotomayor’s legal opinion surely matters. That was my point.
All I’m saying is that if I’m POTUS and I’m considering a questionable “official act” i know who I’m going to to clear it first.
The SC put it on the lower courts, which means any challenge to “what’s an official act” will just come back to the SC upon appeal. The conservative majority can choose to hear or not and if they do, hear any challenge, they can rule along party lines in favor. Sotomayor is saying, rightly, that other than a mild delay, this is effectively a rubber stamp for the President to commit any crime while in office. Further, my argument is that if Trump gains office again, he won’t bother clearing anything - he’ll go straight into persecuting anyone he deems disloyal. He’s already saying Kinzinger and Biden and Liz Cheney should meet a military tribunal (though there is absolutely zero jurisdiction). In any authoritarian country, this means at least life imprisonment if it doesn’t mean a firing squad. And he can do it and THEN see what the SC says. He’s not going to clear anything because he knows they are in his pocket, and he can use their own decision to eliminate them if they don’t play ball on ruling what is official or not. The SC may think they have power right now, but take this forward a year from “First day dictator Donny” and tell me the Supreme Court can do shit? They’ve created their own monster.
As well as one might imagine!
Did you read the fucking dissent? That’s a sitting SC Justice saying that quote, not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller:
“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
If one of the dissenting justices thinks it likely, we better pay attention. The whole “They were very clear that non-official acts are not covered.” is a pillar built on sinking sand - what defines non-official becomes subjective real fast. Biden could assassinate every conservative justice on SCOTUS and get his own in there to make it all legal. Threats of the same to any in congress who won’t play ball.
And if someone can’t imagine Biden doing it (I can’t), I’m thinking that there are quite a few citizens who believe Trump abso-fucking-lutely would pull that shit. With a majority on SCOTUS already he could just start going after political rivals and keep SCOTUS themselves in check with threats of the same. If SCOTUS has done anything they’ve painted themselves in a corner and only Congress can unfuck us with impeachment (as unlikely as that seems!)
Nextcloud needs to port over some of the old OC Documentation. Their own docs make all kinds of references and it’s always something esoteric.
Russia already has him.
GOP putting the “Conservation” back into “Conservative” again…
/s just in case
[Narrator’s voice] “that hope was unfounded”
If you are a cis-het white who at least publicly proclaims belief in Jesus, you should be fine. For eveyone else, they’ll start with those who have the least power and keep coming for the next out-group on the ladder… and they’ll use anyone they can convince along the ladder to kick off those on a lower rung.
Let’s see, illegal immigrants, homeless, drug addicts, trans, gay, muslim, atheist, brown, jewish - appologies if sure if I left anyone out. You may disagree with the order, but I might not be far off.
We need someone to ask him how he’d like to die like that boat electricution vs. shark question: “How would you rather die? Drink bleach or inject it?”
Am in Illinois today. Can confirm, nothing destroyed and certainly not disintegrated.
I’ll just leave this here…
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2023-06-28/trump-believe-me-i-was-lying
If you’re going to repeat russian propaganda - it’s TWO fucking candidates blind to genocide and the one who is now the first ever US President convicted of a felony has repeatedly made comments that he wouldn’t even hold back on Gaza and likely would accelerate it to “finish the job”. Biden is no fucking hero here, but Trump is objectively worse on Israel-Palestine if you are a single issue voter. And Isreal-Palestine generally doesn’t break the top 5 for single issue voters in the US, so please… please… stop with this.
then shalt thou count to three…
No offense, but then “happening” would have been more appropriate. The other commenter is correct about “happened” being past tense as in… it’s over. Or you could have used “has happened” which leaves a bit of room for future violence. But this is pedantry at it’s best - you’re intent having been acknowledged. :)
No no… they take the bribes AFTER ruling in their favor. Total Legal now. They decided it was.