This is the Republican Party

[astonmartin708]

I read it as a message to states to quit removing candidates for federal office from their ballots as that is a Congressional responsibility under Section 3.

I feel that the liberals' concurrent opinion is the right one.

Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.

I'm not sure how the court (specifically a conservative majority court) can grant an authority to congress (to disqualify a candidate), which is not explicitly granted within the constitution.... unless, by doing so they're open to a more interpretational view of the remainder of the constitution which they continually say that they aren't. All that being said, the federal government should still be the mechanism for enforcing the protection of federal elections.

Of note, the Democrats did side with the Republican majority on this item of federal authority therefore it's not really a shift to their traditional constitutional policy position of promoting federalism but it is a wish-wash from the conservatives who pick and choose when they think federalism vs. the 10th amendment is appropriate only when it suits their desires. (Abortion, Education, Immigration, etc...)

 

[astonmartin708]

It will be an uphill climb. Confidence in our state courts to render unbiased decisons isn’t currently very high among a number of Pubs.

We agree there. State courts are largely a joke when it comes to determining electoral governance or personal freedoms. And that goes for both conservative and liberal minded states. I don't think a liberal would trust the SC of Texas to be unbiased anymore than a conservative would trust New York.

It's a sad state of affairs we've devolved into.... simply uttering that thought makes me uneasy about the continuing state of the union.

 

[astonmartin708]

The Colorado Secretary of State weighs in. Keep in mind she’s an attorney. Lines up with Huffy’s analysis. Not sure how you can be “stripped” of an authority you never constitutional had but here we are in 2024

View embedded media

The problem is that it was never constitutionally defined WHO would enforce the disqualification standard of the 14th amendment. The standard only reads that Congress can reinstate those who are disqualified (historically confederates after taking a loyalty oath) It was much easier for any branch of the Union government to enforce after a couple tens of thousands of casualties lie dead on battlefields.

As the Republican party argues continually, if the Constitution doesn't define it..... then it's supposed to be left to the states per the 10th amendment. Unless you're a liberal who thinks that the document is open to further interpretation on intent (or a conservative court member who's belief system stands to benefit from your philosophical flip flopping about the ideals of federalism). Interestingly, this disagreement hasn't stopped recurring since the early days of the Republic.

All of this just brings me back to my opinion that the US really needs a new constitutional convention to clarify or assert what the proper governance is rather than 9 people making it up on the fly. The document, and even the more recent amendments to it are incredibly imperfect to the point of being farcical and allowing for bad actors (Trump) to take advantage of them. I can guarantee you that the Republicans of 1860 who fought a war to protect their Republic and who crafted the amendment at issue, having seen January 6th, would not have allowed Trump anywhere near the US capitol unless he was being brought back in shackles by Grant. Their major flaw was that they made an oversight in their amendment.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

It will be an uphill climb. Confidence in our state courts to render unbiased decisons isn’t currently very high among a number of Pubs.

I imagine by Dems as well. Every part of our government is getting more biased, and/or showing their bias more, including the courts.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The problem is that it was never constitutionally defined WHO would enforce the disqualification standard of the 14th amendment. The standard only reads that Congress can reinstate those who are disqualified (historically confederates after taking a loyalty oath) It was much easier for any branch of the Union government to enforce after a couple tens of thousands of casualties lie dead on battlefields.

As the Republican party argues continually, if the Constitution doesn't define it..... then it's supposed to be left to the states per the 10th amendment. Unless you're a liberal who thinks that the document is open to further interpretation on intent (or a conservative court member who's belief system stands to benefit from your philosophical flip flopping about the ideals of federalism). Interestingly, this disagreement hasn't stopped recurring since the early days of the Republic.

All of this just brings me back to my opinion that the US really needs a new constitutional convention to clarify or assert what the proper governance is rather than 9 people making it up on the fly. The document, and even the more recent amendments to it are incredibly imperfect to the point of being farcical and allowing for bad actors (Trump) to take advantage of them. I can guarantee you that the Republicans of 1860 who fought a war to protect their Republic and who crafted the amendment at issue, having seen January 6th, would not have allowed Trump anywhere near the US capitol unless he was being brought back in shackles by Grant. Their major flaw was that they made an oversight in their amendment.

What scares me is who would decide on who the members of that constitutional convention would be, and those members that were chosen.

There is a need to clarify and get more specific in a number of places in the constitution, to stop someone from gaming loosely defined regulations.

 

[HuffyCane]

What scares me is who would decide on who the members of that constitutional convention would be, and those members that were chosen.

There is a need to clarify and get more specific in a number of places in the constitution, to stop someone from gaming loosely defined regulations.

Not as scary as talking to Gen Z kids who casually say they aren’t really worried about current divisions as AI generated news begins to filter out unwanted views and friction will naturally decrease.

You talk to savvy 19 year old budding political operatives and their number one concern is that you will no longer be able to Google and find opposing views. AI driven internet results will choose the answer for you or shape the answer so it is undesirable or suggest to you that it is even dangerous to read. In 2012 Romney’s people were complaining that Google was driving down favorable mentions onto the third or fourth page when you used the search engine. Now the technology exists to prevent you from seeing it at all automatically.

 

[astonmartin708]

Not as scary as talking to Gen Z kids who casually say they aren’t really worried about current divisions as AI generated news begins to filter out unwanted views and friction will naturally decrease.

You talk to savvy 19 year old budding political operatives and their number one concern is that you will no longer be able to Google and find opposing views. AI driven internet results will choose the answer for you or shape the answer so it is undesirable or suggest to you that it is even dangerous to read. In 2012 Romney’s people were complaining that Google was driving down favorable mentions onto the third or fourth page when you used the search engine. Now the technology exists to prevent you from seeing it at all automatically.

AI algorithms already do this. That's why it's called an echo chamber. Most people these days consume a significant amount of news through social media. Social media algorithms purposefully direct you to things you're interested in and keep hammering on it. Go create a new account and watch one gun video on Youtube, now you're driven ads and videos about concealed carry, 2nd amendment freedoms and eventually a whole bevy of conservative media.

This isn't something that might happen in the future. It's something that has already happened, especially to people not like ourselves or people who don't use "antiquated" methods of media digestion.

Time to reassert the "Fairness Doctrine" on digital media platforms? The only problem is that both sides aren't necessarily created equal. The world is less black and white than it has ever been.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Not as scary as talking to Gen Z kids who casually say they aren’t really worried about current divisions as AI generated news begins to filter out unwanted views and friction will naturally decrease.

You talk to savvy 19 year old budding political operatives and their number one concern is that you will no longer be able to Google and find opposing views. AI driven internet results will choose the answer for you or shape the answer so it is undesirable or suggest to you that it is even dangerous to read. In 2012 Romney’s people were complaining that Google was driving down favorable mentions onto the third or fourth page when you used the search engine. Now the technology exists to prevent you from seeing it at all automatically.

Anyone who wants to rely on ai to solve the general problems in society is numb to what will happen. That would only solve it on the net, not in real life. I have faith, that we will rise above these source limitations. I'm surprised there is not a liberal and a conservative search engine divide yet. People look on certain sites for political articles, that won't change. Search engines can't account for that. You can always specify a certain source in searches.

 

[astonmartin708]

What scares me is who would decide on who the members of that constitutional convention would be, and those members that were chosen.

There is a need to clarify and get more specific in a number of places in the constitution, to stop someone from gaming loosely defined regulations.

At first thought I kind of would want to omit any sitting or previous member of a federal congress. The only problem is that you would get a lot of state congress reps and those guys can be a complete crap shoot in terms of quality.

Inevitably what you would end up with would be people disagreeing and purposefully putting in loopholes that their "party" could exploit.

 

[HuffyCane]

People are lazy and minds will become conditioned to it.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

People are lazy and minds will become conditioned to it.

More than likely right at first. But there would be periods of revolt, when the general populace start movements of people that have had enough of being directed in their thoughts. During those periods, there would be limitations on the limitations put into search engines I'm guessing.

 

[HuffyCane]

More than likely right at first. But there would be periods of revolt, when the general populace start movements of people that have had enough of being directed in their thoughts. During those periods, there would be limitations on the limitations put into search engines I'm guessing.

Don’t some people call that Fox News? CNN? Didn’t Fox News become marketable because of the perceived bias in network news and that forced changes in cable network reporting and entertainment analysis that you claim people would self correct on the internet?

Didn’t CNN become a thing because the networks weren’t giving enough coverage that the market place demanded for the Iraq War and OJ trials?

I’m struggling to see how your solution is viable where there’s an increase of viewpoint focusing when as it stands now a good portion of the country thinks Dana Perino should be in jail and Tucker Carlson should be deported if not executed.

 

[URedskin54]

Deporting Tucker would be a big W

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Don’t some people call that Fox News? CNN? Didn’t Fox News become marketable because of the perceived bias in network news and that forced changes in cable network reporting and entertainment analysis that you claim people would self correct on the internet?

Didn’t CNN become a thing because the networks weren’t giving enough coverage that the market place demanded for the Iraq War and OJ trials?

I’m struggling to see how your solution is viable where there’s an increase of viewpoint focusing when as it stands now a good portion of the country thinks Dana Perino should be in jail and Tucker Carlson should be deported if not executed.

Did I ever say the solutions would be perfect? I'm trying to predict how we will react to something that is kind of brand new. Besides I'm thinking the reaction would have more grass roots than Rupert Murdoch.

 

[lawpoke87]

The problem is that it was never constitutionally defined WHO would enforce the disqualification standard of the 14th amendment. The standard only reads that Congress can reinstate those who are disqualified (historically confederates after taking a loyalty oath) It was much easier for any branch of the Union government to enforce after a couple tens of thousands of casualties lie dead on battlefields.

As the Republican party argues continually, if the Constitution doesn't define it..... then it's supposed to be left to the states per the 10th amendment. Unless you're a liberal who thinks that the document is open to further interpretation on intent (or a conservative court member who's belief system stands to benefit from your philosophical flip flopping about the ideals of federalism). Interestingly, this disagreement hasn't stopped recurring since the early days of the Republic.

All of this just brings me back to my opinion that the US really needs a new constitutional convention to clarify or assert what the proper governance is rather than 9 people making it up on the fly. The document, and even the more recent amendments to it are incredibly imperfect to the point of being farcical and allowing for bad actors (Trump) to take advantage of them. I can guarantee you that the Republicans of 1860 who fought a war to protect their Republic and who crafted the amendment at issue, having seen January 6th, would not have allowed Trump anywhere near the US capitol unless he was being brought back in shackles by Grant. Their major flaw was that they made an oversight in their amendment.

A first year law student or dumb Tulsa real estate attorney knew states lacked the constitutional authority to disqualify candidates from federal elections without a criminal conviction at the bare minimum. Judges in multiple states including some with the highest state court chose to disregard the law due to their own political and financial interests. I absolutely hate the look this has given our judges and courts. Keep in mind that this type of thing could just as easily occur with a conservative judge(s).

 

[HuffyCane]

A first year law student or dumb Tulsa real estate attorney knew states lacked the constitutional authority to disqualify candidates from federal elections without a criminal conviction at the bare minimum. Judges in multiple states including some with the highest state court chose to disregard the law due to their own political and financial interests. I absolutely hate the look this has given our judges and courts. Keep in mind that this type of thing could just as easily occur with a conservative judge(s).

You called it right. But said it would be 5-4. I know it’s difficult not to be cynical given perceived divisions. But in the end the court is bigger than any one case and they are loathe to engage in politics despite what paid hacks try to manipulate us into thinking. They see themselves as historical figures. Politics is way beneath them. At least in their heads. We haven’t really had a true political hack on the court since the New Deal. Maybe I’m a bit romantic because I’ve been to the court several times and have had cases pending before them, but I think once the news cycle settles down the public perception of the court will be positive.

Today was a huge win for democracy. Our institutions have a firm hold on power. The decision cements that democracy isn’t “under attack.” Democracy is strong and it’s going to play out in the hands of the voters. And as the Court has shown over the last 8 years, it’s not shy about ruling against Donald Trump. You might think he won a battle today for fairly or unfairly. The war is far from over. And he’s likely to be back before the court quickly on cases that matter much more to him. And I say that knowing we just witnessed the Supreme Court shut down a Democratic Party attempt to silence at least 45% and perhaps a majority of the country. And that will be the end take away on all of this. He has history of saying to the masses that they aren’t attacking him, they are attacking you. I am in their way.

For that reason, I don’t understand this strategy of repeatedly saying democracy is under attack and then filing this lawsuit. Trump is just going to finally get around to saying they weren’t trying to kick me off the ballot or rig the election, they were trying to silence you. That just boosts turnout to even higher than record levels.

And in an election where the choice is four more years of economic uncertainty and guaranteed inflation versus proven economic performance and law and order, you don’t even have to think twice guessing which way the suburbs in PA, OH, and Michigan are going to go if the Democrat party plan is just to say democracy is under attack 1000 times and show pictures of J6. Daddy is gonna vote for a lower house payment every time. And momma is gonna vote for her daughter not getting murdered by a known maniac asylum seeker every time. Whether that’s sad I can’t decide but I know it’s true.

 

[astonmartin708]

You called it right. But said it would be 5-4. I know it’s difficult not to be cynical given perceived divisions. But in the end the court is bigger than any one case and they are loathe to engage in politics despite what paid hacks try to manipulate us into thinking. They see themselves as historical figures. Politics is way beneath them. At least in their heads. We haven’t really had a true political hack on the court since the New Deal. Maybe I’m a bit romantic because I’ve been to the court several times and have had cases pending before them, but I think once the news cycle settles down the public perception of the court will be positive.

Today was a huge win for democracy. Our institutions have a firm hold on power. The decision cements that democracy isn’t “under attack.” Democracy is strong and it’s going to play out in the hands of the voters. And as the Court has shown over the last 8 years, it’s not shy about ruling against Donald Trump. You might think he won a battle today for fairly or unfairly. The war is far from over. And he’s likely to be back before the court quickly on cases that matter much more to him. And I say that knowing we just witnessed the Supreme Court shut down a Democratic Party attempt to silence at least 45% and perhaps a majority of the country. And that will be the end take away on all of this. He has history of saying to the masses that they aren’t attacking him, they are attacking you. I am in their way.

For that reason, I don’t understand this strategy of repeatedly saying democracy is under attack and then filing this lawsuit. Trump is just going to finally get around to saying they weren’t trying to kick me off the ballot or rig the election, they were trying to silence you. That just boosts turnout to even higher than record levels.

And in an election where the choice is four more years of economic uncertainty and guaranteed inflation versus proven economic performance and law and order, you don’t even have to think twice guessing which way the suburbs in PA, OH, and Michigan are going to go if the Democrat party plan is just to say democracy is under attack 1000 times and show pictures of J6. Daddy is gonna vote for a lower house payment every time. And momma is gonna vote for her daughter not getting murdered by a known maniac asylum seeker every time. Whether that’s sad I can’t decide but I know it’s true.

Honestly, I don't agree.... at all.

You say our Democracy isn't under attack because someone who shouldn't be allowed to run, was allowed to run? Again.... just because the institutions are flawed doesn't mean that someone who led an insurrection and got away with is a "win for Democracy". That's bull.

The courts showed that they make decisions on the law as they interpret it.... but when the law is flawed.... that doesn't mean things are fine and dandy. It means that judges are upholding flawed institutions.

Also, as I stated multiple times today.... the logic that the court majority uses to defend this decision is antithetical to the logic it used to overturn Roe. I have less confidence in the court now than I did yesterday when it comes to "doing the right thing". A person who did what Trump did (regardless of their party) should not be allowed to walk the streets free, much less be in office. The simple fact that we're arguing whether or not his name should be on a ballot already means Democracy is failing.

Ask yourself again.... do you really, in your heart of hearts believe that, given a time machine, the people who drafted the 14th amendment would have wanted a man who led a violent rebellion on the capitol in office? Why do conservatives only apply original intent when it comes to the 2nd amendment?

 

[drboobay]

Trump is a exceedingly manipulative and dangerous man. God help us if he wins the election.

But to advocate to remove him from the ballot without a criminal conviction is giving into the impulse that many of his supporters have brought up to me - that the ends justify the means. It's just not right. We need a little bit of intellectual consistency, or at least I need a little bit - to live with myself.

 

[astonmartin708]

Trump is a exceedingly manipulative and dangerous man. God help us if he wins the election.

But to advocate to remove him from the ballot without a criminal conviction is giving into the impulse that many of his supporters have brought up to me - that the ends justify the means. It's just not right. We need a little bit of intellectual consistency, or at least I need a little bit - to live with myself.

What was wrong was that he wasn’t convicted. He wasn’t convicted because the imperfect constitutional process benefited him unjustly. If that doesn’t happen none of this is even an issue.

What it looks like to me is constitutional protection after constitutional protection failing to achieve their intent: to stop someone who wants to subvert, overthrow, or corruptly manipulate the government.

 

[URedskin54]

I wonder if constitutional protections have ever benefited criminals unjustly before

 

[drboobay]

It's just living under uncertainty. False positives and false negatives are inevitable. We can only control where we put the priority. Our legal system has lots of legal protections to avoid false positives IMO and thank goodness for that.

 

[astonmartin708]

I wonder if constitutional protections have ever benefited criminals unjustly before

Laws that benefit criminals and detriment law abiding, upstanding citizens should not be laws at all. -Thomas Jefferson.

(okay so he didn’t actually say that…. But I could totally see him saying that)

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Laws that benefit criminals and detriment law abiding, upstanding citizens should not be laws at all. -Thomas Jefferson.

(okay so he didn’t actually say that…. But I could totally see him saying that)

He is a Federal official and he needs to be convicted by impeachment or a federal court. What I cant figure out is why Barrett and the liberal justices didn't agree on this. Hopefully his day is coming in August. We can't have fifty states with fifty different federal ballots. Even if he is not convicted, we lose much more intrinsic values in our society by breaking the rules to keep him off the ballot.

 

[aTUfan]

What was wrong was that he wasn’t convicted. He wasn’t convicted because the imperfect constitutional process benefited him unjustly. If that doesn’t happen none of this is even an issue.

What it looks like to me is constitutional protection after constitutional protection failing to achieve their intent: to stop someone who wants to subvert, overthrow, or corruptly manipulate the government.

what happened to the jan6 congressional investigation

 

[astonmartin708]

Anybody care to place bets on the Presidential Immunity ruling?

 

[aTUfan]

Anybody care to place bets on the Presidential Immunity ruling?

is it immunity only when in office or longer?

 

[TulsaRulzOSUdrools]

You called it right. But said it would be 5-4. I know it’s difficult not to be cynical given perceived divisions. But in the end the court is bigger than any one case and they are loathe to engage in politics despite what paid hacks try to manipulate us into thinking. They see themselves as historical figures. Politics is way beneath them. At least in their heads. We haven’t really had a true political hack on the court since the New Deal. Maybe I’m a bit romantic because I’ve been to the court several times and have had cases pending before them, but I think once the news cycle settles down the public perception of the court will be positive.

Today was a huge win for democracy. Our institutions have a firm hold on power. The decision cements that democracy isn’t “under attack.” Democracy is strong and it’s going to play out in the hands of the voters. And as the Court has shown over the last 8 years, it’s not shy about ruling against Donald Trump. You might think he won a battle today for fairly or unfairly. The war is far from over. And he’s likely to be back before the court quickly on cases that matter much more to him. And I say that knowing we just witnessed the Supreme Court shut down a Democratic Party attempt to silence at least 45% and perhaps a majority of the country. And that will be the end take away on all of this. He has history of saying to the masses that they aren’t attacking him, they are attacking you. I am in their way.

For that reason, I don’t understand this strategy of repeatedly saying democracy is under attack and then filing this lawsuit. Trump is just going to finally get around to saying they weren’t trying to kick me off the ballot or rig the election, they were trying to silence you. That just boosts turnout to even higher than record levels.

And in an election where the choice is four more years of economic uncertainty and guaranteed inflation versus proven economic performance and law and order, you don’t even have to think twice guessing which way the suburbs in PA, OH, and Michigan are going to go if the Democrat party plan is just to say democracy is under attack 1000 times and show pictures of J6. Daddy is gonna vote for a lower house payment every time. And momma is gonna vote for her daughter not getting murdered by a known maniac asylum seeker every time. Whether that’s sad I can’t decide but I know it’s true.

I think this is really naive, just like the vote for Trump. Trump's answer for inflation? 10% tariffs on all imports and cuts to all interest rates.

From here until eternity, I think losing presidential candidates should get to protest on the mall, call mobs, and burn down Congress. It is only fair—nothing to see here. Move along. These guys were only trying to get to the bottom of Twitter conspiracy theories. It was their right.


I don't understand the strategy of sitting here, letting him commit crimes in plain view, and letting him get away with it.

Georgia is the most severe state. It would be pretty good money to bet he attempted the same thing in PA, MI, WI, and AZ. We have a courageous aide who decided to get him on a tape. Otherwise, this may not be the case.

 

[lawpoke87]

Anybody care to place bets on the Presidential Immunity ruling?

Best guess….Court will find immunity but limit its scope to official acts conducted as part of the President’s official duties.

To TulsaRulz…I don’t have a crystal ball but my best guess is interest rates will need to be cut beginning sometime in 2025. Inflation will continue to move downward in 2024 due to the current monetary tightening absent more stimulus being added by the Admin.

 

[astonmartin708]

Best guess….Court will find immunity but limit its scope to official acts conducted as part of the President’s official duties.

To TulsaRulz…I don’t have a crystal ball but my best guess is interest rates will need to be cut beginning sometime in 2025. Inflation will continue to move downward in 2024 due to the current monetary tightening absent more stimulus being added by the Admin.

In which case Biden should have Trump liquidated the following day…. immunity = no rules…. and the impeachment process is a joke as we already have established you can’t be impeached when you’re out of office…

 

[lawpoke87]

In which case Biden should have Trump liquidated the following day…. immunity = no rules…. and the impeachment process is a joke as we already have established you can’t be impeached when you’re out of office…

The question centers around “President’s Official Duties” imo. I don’t believe attempted election interference would be covered. You asked me to guess….this is my guess.

 

[HuffyCane]

I think this is really naive, just like the vote for Trump. Trump's answer for inflation? 10% tariffs on all imports and cuts to all interest rates.

From here until eternity, I think losing presidential candidates should get to protest on the mall, call mobs, and burn down Congress. It is only fair—nothing to see here. Move along. These guys were only trying to get to the bottom of Twitter conspiracy theories. It was their right.

I don't understand the strategy of sitting here, letting him commit crimes in plain view, and letting him get away with it.

Georgia is the most severe state. It would be pretty good money to bet he attempted the same thing in PA, MI, WI, and AZ. We have a courageous aide who decided to get him on a tape. Otherwise, this may not be the case.

I just call balls and strikes.

This case was bizarre. Less than a year from an obscure radical left online journal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court did the right thing the right way. Regardless of the politics.

Sad to see the media gin up discontent and disagreement over it.

 

[HuffyCane]

Best guess….Court will find immunity but limit its scope to official acts conducted as part of the President’s official duties.

To TulsaRulz…I don’t have a crystal ball but my best guess is interest rates will need to be cut beginning sometime in 2025. Inflation will continue to move downward in 2024 due to the current monetary tightening absent more stimulus being added by the Admin.

Agree on the legal prediction but I believe you may see a slightly broader standard of immunity. I don’t think they will extend blanket immunity. They may revisit and narrow civil immunity as well. Need to think about it more.

No clue on the economics and would not have a guess even with a PhD from LSE.

 

[astonmartin708]

Agree on the legal prediction but I believe you may see a slightly broader standard of immunity. I don’t think they will extend blanket immunity. They may revisit and narrow civil immunity as well. Need to think about it more.

No clue on the economics and would not have a guess even with a PhD from LSE.

I think immunity in matters of war more or less fine, but immunity beyond that makes little sense. You can not uphold the constitution as it says in the oath of office and at the same time, be immune from consequences for violations of the constitution.

It would essentially undermine every civil liberty the people of the US have. It would be like saying ”**** the bill of rights”,

 

[astonmartin708]

The question centers around “President’s Official Duties” imo. I don’t believe attempted election interference would be covered. You asked me to guess….this is my guess.

Official Duties is an arbitrary standard. A term made up out of thin air by the judiciary. Who gets to decide what’s an official duty?

If you haven’t written down a standard about what an official duty includes and doesn’t include then don’t base your survival of your entire democracy around it.

Could a president successfully argue that putting a political opponent in a n extrajudicial prison camp was part of their official duty?

 

[TulsaRulzOSUdrools]

It's so quaint how you all seem to boy it down in the left squacking. The right doesn't want to answer for Trump because they know there has never been anything like him. Never. So they regress to their Newsmax and Tucker Max Youtube Channels.

It's too funny how you all sidestep precisely what I just asked. What is the friggin standard? Does the losing candidate just protest like a little bitch, bring their mob, and burn down the congress?

How far does a candidate get to go in trying to overturn an election? Was everything he did just sort of bad, not so bad, bad form, just Trump being Trump, illegal, but we don't really want to deal with it because it is Trump, and it might make Lachlan Murdoch a lot of money and be a big pain in our ass.

You seem to think a 37% marginal tax rate vs 39% marginal tax rate is the end of America. That is hilarious when you look at something like what we had in 2020. The entire GOP knew it, but now they know there is no punishment for their base in their primaries. Orange Man is still a god.

It's too funny for people to think we live in a crazy tight monetary policy environment. These are not particularly high-interest rates. There is lots of reshoring going on right now because people want the hell out of China; their population is dramatically declining, and we have cheap energy here. We have a people problem, too.

 

[astonmartin708]

Just wanted to make a point of clarity… I don’t disagree with Lawpoke on what the court will probably rule, I argue that the ruling they are going to make is extremely detrimental to the republic.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Official Duties is an arbitrary standard. A term made up out of thin air by the judiciary. Who gets to decide what’s an official duty?

If you haven’t written down a standard about what an official duty includes and doesn’t include then don’t base your survival of your entire democracy around it.

Could a president successfully argue that putting a political opponent in a n extrajudicial prison camp was part of their official duty?

I would make the porn argument. You'll know it when you see it. Am confident that a court would recognize it when it happened 99 times out of 100.

 

[astonmartin708]

I would make the porn argument. You'll know it when you see it. Am confident that a court would recognize it when it happened 99 times out of 100.

I was thinking about this exact scenario this morning driving to work.

My first counter argument is that…. We saw it in January 6th and nothing happened… so I clearly don’t trust anyone who says they’ll know it when they see it.

My second counter argument is that I don’t want my civil protection from dictatorship to be so subjective. Porn doesn’t hurt anyone. Dictators do, and frequently they (like Trump) use that subjectivity to their advantage by continually moving goalposts until you don’t recognize where the original post was. We’ve seen this exact scenario play out in Russia in the past 20 years. Even if Trump is not the one to do it, what’s to say a Democrat won’t 15 years from now?

 

[lawpoke87]

Just wanted to make a point of clarity… I don’t disagree with Lawpoke on what the court will probably rule, I argue that the ruling they are going to make is extremely detrimental to the republic.

I disagree. I welcome some clarification on Presidential immunity as it relates to “official duties”. Just over the past few years are these acts covered by Presidential immunity?

1). Mistakenly killing women and children in a wedding party from a drone strike?

2). Issuing an unconstitutional EO’s requiring private citizens to take a vaccine in order to keep their job. Vaccine results in death of an individual .

3). Asking people to “find” votes in a Presidential election ?

There are many more.

I obviously would view the first two as being within a President’s official duties while the third one is not.

 

[astonmartin708]

I disagree. I welcome some clarification on Presidential immunity as it relates to “official duties”. Just over the past few years are these acts covered by Presidential immunity?

1). Mistakenly killing women and children in a wedding party from a drone strike?

2). Issuing an unconstitutional EO’s requiring private citizens to take a vaccine in order to keep their job. Vaccine results in death of an individual .

3). Asking people to “find” votes in a Presidential election ?

There are many more.

I obviously would view the first two as being within a President’s official duties while the third one is not.

They are very unlikely to rule on what an official duty actually is, and therefore I’m against it. Also I don’t think the courts should be the ones to decide what’s an official duty anyway and Congress is too gridlocked and partisan to actually come to an agreement on it.