Did he go on to say how the Constitution was violated? Or is he just throwing a short snippet out there for the headline jello brains to believe?
Nope just cried like a typical spoiled brat that didn't get his way.
Do you agree with this ruling and if so, why? Also, how does this ruling protect the country from authoritarianism?
I think it's sad we even had to have the ruling. Damn near 250 years of precedent upset by Democrats intent on the destruction of a President they do not like. I do agree with the ruling and thought they did a good job of getting it right down the middle. They didn't provide blanket immunity but did say immunity applies on official acts and went so far as to allow the lower courts to further look into. About as fair a ruling as I could imagine.
Because an authoritarian Pres and DOJ is creating lawfare to keep a political opponent from running.
Let's assume this claim by you is true (it isn't, but let's assume it is).
And do you know how the Court says we must determine what acts or officials and non-official?
Presidents can not order the assassination of a foreign leader, what makes you think it would be an official act to assassinate a political opponent? The EO he would have to sign overturning the existing EO would cause a huge reaction from Congress and the country.
What makes you think it would not be an official act by the President?
Good Lord, do you even hear yourself? Which party is telling people who to accept, what to drive, what to eat, how to live....? Conservatives want less gov't in their lives. Why is that so hard for libs to figure this out? The left, FBI and DOJ literally went after Trump for political assassination purposes and you want to talk about authoritarianism?
Less government except when it comes to a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions, correct? Less government except when it comes to bodily autonomy, correct? Less government except when it comes to funding government projects that conservatives favor, correct? Etc.
Yes I do. Because your positions doesn't make any sense and you right-wingers keep contradicting yourself as you flail around everywhere trying to defend one man. Either you aren't thinking through what you are supporting or you are thinking through it and know that you are supporting authoritarianism as long as it comes from the right. I'm trying to figure out which one it is.
The extreme lengths that you try to twist stuff is amazing.
How would assassinating a political opponent be ruled a official act? Explain that one.
Don't want to get a DUI? Don't drink and drive. Don't want to get obese? Don't overeat. Don't want to become a drug addict? Don't do drugs. Don't want to become pregnant? Take precautions. Don't start with the rape, incest, mom/baby in danger, 1.5% of all abortions. I'd give you those in exchange for the others. You sitting their acting like Republicans are the only ones pushing for the funding of their own projects is comical. Blinders, no self awareness, intentional lack of honesty?
I've not gone to any extreme lengths. I'm discussing issues that are discussed in this opinion, that I am currently reading. Have you or do you plan to read it?
You raise an excellent point.
Ok
Well maybe you are willing to exchange this for the others, but many of the Republican so-called "conservatives" that you support aren't. They are wanting to criminalize all abortions.
No I'm not. Did I ever state Democrats don't want to fund their projects. Nope. You just created a strawman.
lol, then you aren't paying attention. They are everywhere, including Trump himself.
Why do you agree with the ruling? What about it do you agree with? How does this ruling protect the country from authoritarianism?
Again, . . .
Not a legal scholar but from what I'm reading:
And the Court did not clarify which acts fall within this "outer perimeter." So how are we to determine this Bearcat?
Why do you believe this? What in today's ruling would place this act outside the protection if a President made the claim it was an official act?
2 Pesos was hoping Joe could kill Trump, lawfare is not working. He wants a plan B.
I know common sense is hard far you but it doesn't take a genius to figure out killing political opponents is clearly out of bounds. Then again Democrats are morally corrupt so who knows they might just say it's OK.
I don't want President Biden to kill Trump or any of his political opponents. Or vice versa.
Well at one time, people thought a President trying to overturn an election was clearly out of bounds. At one time, people thought a President attacking the integrity of our own elections was clearly out of bounds. At one time, people thought what happened on January 6 could never happen. That all use to be "common sense" too. Not anymore though.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
lol, you literally linked to Fox News when asked a question about what you think. A clip of some talking head on Fox News!🤣🤣
That talking head was assigned to the Supreme Court , has a Harvard law degree, analyst for cnn, fox and others. Oh yeah a former White House press secretary. Initially W brought her to the White House. That’s a lot more legal cred than I have. So yeah, I will trust her. I am a business owner and if I need legal advice , I hire it out.
I guess you would have to ask the 6 Justices that ruled for it. Your ridiculous argument was brought up during arguments and clearly dismissed as batshit crazy by 6 out of 9 Justices. I may not always agree with every ruling the SCOTUS makes but I do respect their rulings. I do find it strange that you have such an issue with the ruling. You were sure to point out how wrong it was to disagree or criticize court rulings even though the judges in those cases are clearly political activist. You're double standards are alive, well and aging nicely.
apnews.com
You libs are great at creating boogey men. In your case it’s “authoritarianism”. You lost what little credibility you had left, and proved my point, when YOU accused me of creating straw men.
This is dangerous rhetoric. If you want to incite revolt this is the type of rhetoric a politician would use. Anyone see a peacefully and patriotically with that one? Chucky wasn't any better, which means the Minority leader in the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate are making these claims. Throw in AOC and wanting to Impeach the Justices for ....... something yet to be determined, and you have a very divisive Democrat Party. Not a change for most on this board. Hakeem with AOC need to figure out what the SCOTUS did that was unconstitutional. Till then making claims such as this is downright dangerous.
Three more members who can define all seven components of critical thinking. Where these members fail miserably? Getting through to the leftist is completely beyond their reach.
