Now that Biden is "immune" perhaps he ought to decree a little justice on trump

[McBell]

Nope. Enuf means you made the point

Except you said enuf said.
Which means there is no more for you to say.

How did YOU put it... Please stay up with the vernacular.

and it can't be argued further.

And yet here we are.
So at best you are just wrong...

 

[Viker]

From the "what's good for the goose" dept.

Very tempting.

This is an excellent opportunity for Biden to show he's not like Trump or what MAGA claims, a dictatorial *** ****. He'll play by the book and defeat Trump, fair and square ... again.

 

[McBell]

Very tempting.

This is an excellent opportunity for Biden to show he's not like Trump or what MAGA claims, a dictatorial *** ****. He'll play by the book and defeat Trump, fair and square ... again.

Biden should use his newly gained absolute immunity to harass SCOTUS until SCOTUS revokes the Presidential Absolute Immunity.
Start small.
Then as he is ignored slowly get worse and worse until SCOTUS has no option left but to revoke it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Except you said enuf said.
Which means there is no more for you to say.

How did YOU put it... Please stay up with the vernacular.


And yet here we are.
So at best you are just wrong...

If you want to think so in spite of me explaining it well enough. Nothing I can do here about it.

 

[McBell]

If you want to think so in spite of me explaining it well enough. Nothing I can do here about it.

If what you said is not what you actually meant, you should have just clarified it.

As it stands now, you are the one guilty of that which you implied of me.

 

[Viker]

Biden should use his newly gained absolute immunity to harass SCOTUS until SCOTUS revokes the Presidential Absolute Immunity.
Start small.
Then as he is ignored slowly get worse and worse until SCOTUS has no option left but to revoke it.

Hmmm. Maybe. Nothing too rough or dictatorial. But a little pressure, perhaps.

 

[McBell]

Hmmm. Maybe. Nothing too rough or dictatorial. But a little pressure, perhaps.

Like I said, start out small and work his way up to catastrophic.

Of course, I would flat out tell SCOTUS and the American People exactly what is going on so that there is no playing stupid (plausible or otherwise deniability).

Or more specifically, when someone claims ignorance of the intent, they will not be credible.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If what you said is not what you actually meant, you should have just clarified it.

As it stands now, you are the one guilty of that which you implied of me.

Nope. You just have your own unique interpretation on something that nobody else has an issue with in understanding, and it clearly bothers you that it doesn't meet your particular criteria on what it means.

 

[McBell]

Nope. You just have your own unique interpretation on something that nobody else has an issue with in understanding, and it clearly bothers you that it doesn't meet your particular criteria on what it means.

*yawn*

So it clearly was not "enuf said" from you...

 

[Kfox]

So if a president, lets say Biden for instance, sees an opponent as a clear and present danger to the democracy, lets say Trump just for an example, Would Biden acting in his role as a president seeing an opponent as the threat to the country and has him taken out, would he then be immune because it was his duty to protect the constitution?

A president does not have the authority to do something that is illegal or unconstitutional, Trying to have an american citizen killed would be illegal.

 

[McBell]

A president does not have the authority to do something that is illegal or unconstitutional, Trying to have an american citizen killed would be illegal.

They do now.
all that needs be said is that it was "official"

Interestingly enough, SCOTUS did not set any precedent as to what is and is not "official" in their ruling before sending it back to the state.
.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Have you read the actual bill and the dissentions?

They have been linked numerous times in this thread.

I flat out ask because there are those (you know, three Supreme Court Judges) who know more about than you and who have voiced their opinions.

Perhaps you should actually read them, and read them with comprehension as the goal.
leave your obvious confirmation bias outside.

Yes, I made a different thread to talk about the text of the bill if you want to respond to that.

 

[LuisDantas]

From the "what's good for the goose" dept.

Tempting... but still abhorrent.

You know what could be better? Much better still?

Make a request for the SCOTUS to clarify and present examples and guidelines for what can and what can not conceivably be an official presidential action.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Tempting... but still abhorrent.

You know what could be better? Much better still?

Make a request for the SCOTUS to clarify and present examples and guidelines for what can and what can not conceivably be an official presidential action.

That question has been remanded back down to District Court for evidentiary hearings, which in themselves will be interesting. Who will be subpoenaed, what will they say etc. It will be taking place just before the election.

 

[Pogo]

Tempting... but still abhorrent.

You know what could be better? Much better still?

Make a request for the SCOTUS to clarify and present examples and guidelines for what can and what can not conceivably be an official presidential action.

 

[F1fan]

They do now.
all that needs be said is that it was "official"

Right, which is vague and up to personal character as to what the oath of office means, and what obligation to the law a president holds. The ruling won't affect honorable presidents, but it will allow a corrupt president to exploit the loophole and get away with any crimes that is labeled "offical act".

Interestingly enough, SCOTUS did not set any precedent as to what is and is not "official" in their ruling before sending it back to the state.
.

Which means if Trump is elected again and commits crimes (almost a given at this point) that are arguably outside of the scope of the presidency and is held accountable some how, it will end up right back to the SCOTUS.

We see republicans really abusing the honor system of our tradition of governing. One reason things have been vague and open to interpretation is because the FF assumed those in public service would be principled and be honorable. They didn't foresee a conservative public that is poorly informed and immature.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A president does not have the authority to do something that is illegal or unconstitutional, Trying to have an american citizen killed would be illegal.

I wish the deranged and hysterical crowd will realize that fact.

I doubt these nutcase people ever will though.

 

[Laniakea]

I was being facetious. I do not want a Democratic dictator any more than I want a Republican one. Biden is ethical. He has morals. So he is not willing to become a dictator even if it is the only way to solve the problem of Trump. He probably believes that going against the Constitution and his oaths would be a bad thing, even though the USSC said that it would be okay.

You sure do put lots o' faith in biden!
Are you looking to get a job in his administration?

 

[Laniakea]

You are talking about Trump again.

Trump isn't defying the SCOTUS and giving away tax money to college graduates who overborrowed.

 

[Laniakea]

There's "bribing," then there's delivering on campaign promises that actually help American citizens. It's not bribing when it is done to promote the welfare of the people, it is doing the job.

"Delivering on campaign promises" is referred to as "pandering to his base in his bid to get re-elected" when a Republican does it.