Fox News Alert ⚠️: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution

[-CarlHungus-]

I don’t know enough about this ruling to have an opinion, but like other have suggested a “win” now for Trump means more executive power I guess which im typically not thrilled with.

The memes have been solid though.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

No I just think they are corrupt

Well, two of them certainly appear to be.

It was a yes no question and you couldn't answer.

It's a question with an answer that would be based on your assumptions. And you have proven yourself to have a poor understanding of political philosophy....and also an inability to understand that philosophy and practical practice are two different things (this is why compromise is baked into our system of governance).

I am largely a classical liberalist. But the older I get, I'm more Hobbes than Locke.

Baldy just told us the other day bribes are official acts and can be done by the President.

That's not what he, or Barrett, said. How hard is this to understand?

Words matter. But words matter more in legislation and law. We've now clipped the ability to have oversight of the Executive, and sooner or later (probably later, unless two of these six justices croak really soon) there will be hell to pay.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

means more executive power I guess which im typically not thrilled with.

Bingo.

The memes have been solid though.

I could not give a fvck less about that 16 year old terrorist. And any "conservative" talking that way is incredibly disingenuous. You leave the USA and declare war on the USA? FAFO. Not to mention none of these bullshitters ever mention al-Awlaki's eight year old daughter, also an American citizen, killed in a raid authorized by Trump....yep, disingenuous. Me? "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

 

[WV-FAN]

Bingo.

I could not give a fvck less about that 16 year old terrorist. And any "conservative" talking that way is incredibly disingenuous. You leave the USA and declare war on the USA? FAFO. Not to mention none of these bullshitters ever mention al-Awlaki's eight year old daughter, also an American citizen, killed in a raid authorized by Trump....yep, disingenuous. Me? "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

 

[19MU88]

That's not what he, or Barrett, said. How hard is this to understand?

Words matter.

His words

"You realize that a president can now accept bribes for a presidential pardon and be completely fine doing that, right? "

God damn this is why I rarely engage you idiots. Can't tell if you are lying or really this stupid.

 

[WVUSerg]

M

His words

"You realize that a president can now accept bribes for a presidential pardon and be completely fine doing that, right? "

God damn this is why I rarely engage you idiots. Can't tell if you are lying or really this stupid.

No they are not stupid just ask them. They are way more intelligent than we are. I mean rifle may even be more intelligent than Stephan Hawking. He definitely knows more about the US Constitution than 6 of the Supreme Court Justices.

 

[riflearm2]

Baldy just told us the other day bribes are official acts and can be done by the President.

Why take it out of context, liar? The president can without concern of prosecution. The evidence for what was received on the president's end can't have testimony about it, etc. Good luck trying to tie that together for a jury.

It's a green light for the president to do it when involved with an official act.

 

[riflearm2]

It's amazing that with all of the morons who supported Banker's post, none of you can refute anything I said to disprove his stance nor argue to further defend his stance.

The bully got punched in the nose, and the little dorks behind him all ran home.

 

[19MU88]

Words matter. Your words

You realize that a president can now accept bribes for a presidential pardon and be completely fine doing that, right?

 

[riflearm2]

Words matter. Your words

You realize that a president can now accept bribes for a presidential pardon and be completely fine doing that, right?

And the president can. It's no different than when my mom sees that I am driving on the freeway at 75 mph and the speed limit is only 65 mph. I know that I am fine from getting a ticket. Likewise, a president is fine accepting a bribe for an official act, because as your own justice said, the prosecution is hamstrung by the SCOTUS ruling.

Now, are you still going to hide from explaining how Banker was correct even though I proved how he was wrong?

 

[19MU88]

And the president can. It's no different than when my mom sees that I am driving on the freeway at 75 mph and the speed limit is only 65 mph. I know that I am fine from getting a ticket. Likewise, a president is fine accepting a bribe for an official act, because as your own justice said, the prosecution is hamstrung by the SCOTUS ruling.

Now, are you still going to hide from explaining how Banker was correct even though I proved how he was wrong?

Bribes are not an official act.

Dismissed!

Next case!

 

[i am herdman]

And the president can. It's no different than when my mom sees that I am driving on the freeway at 75 mph and the speed limit is only 65 mph. I know that I am fine from getting a ticket. Likewise, a president is fine accepting a bribe for an official act, because as your own justice said, the prosecution is hamstrung by the SCOTUS ruling.

Now, are you still going to hide from explaining how Banker was correct even though I proved how he was wrong?

Terrible analogy.