Pretend threat to the Constitution
SEAL team 6 could be used by a president to eliminate political opponents
Are there activists on the Supreme Court? Based on prior conversations on this subject, it's likely an individual conclusion but, I think Shapiro makes the most concise argument as to who the activists are.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Red Box Rules
This seed is directed to those with common sense. Those who reply or comment without that will only be exposing themselves to the lack thereof.
Tags
Who is online
438 visitors
The truth about the supposed immunity of the President.
gee, I wonder which groups will bear the nationwide brunt of being held accountable if that just doesn't prove to be true...
Well, considering that the Left wants to turn the Constitution into what they call a "living document", meaning it means whatever they say it means, I would imagine that the groups that bear the brunt would be those who believe there is such a thing as objective truth.
Which always makes their objection to any ruling so illogical. Their whole ideology (to give "we want what we want immediately"credit as something more than a two year old's mindset) is that the Constitution is always changing and it is whatever 5 justices say it is. Someone who believes in a living constitution can't really argue any ruling is wrong. The constitution just "evolved" that way.
Is that opposed to the Supreme Court originalists saying the Constitution means whatever they say it means.
Presumed immunity is not in the Constitution, so how is it in the finding of the "orginalists"?
The Heller decision is probably the best known example of "originalism" being used for political purposes.
It seems that the current court is originalist when it suits their purposes and not originalist when that suits their purposes.
What you mean is that there is no text that specifically states such, not that it isn't in the Constitution. As I have stated before in other posts, the Constitution was never intended to address every specific occurrence that might come up. For instance, the Constitution doesn't specifically address an individual shouting "fire" in a crowded venue such as a movie theater as protected speech. The reason, I believe, is that the founders were enshrining a concept rather than any specific event. If that is true, then the founders did not intend to write a constitution that would allow any and all actions regardless of motive. They obviously assumed that rationality would interpret meaning. That said...
... Yes. It is opposed. When the founders wrote the Constitution and enshrined the separation of powers, they were not speaking of specific instances. Rather, they were speaking of concepts in general terms, since it would be impossible to cover every possible eventuality. This is recognized in the recent Supreme Court ruling. Had the Court ruled otherwise it would have effectively subjugated the Executive branch to either or both other branches, eliminating the separation. That separation however, doesn't mean the president is immune to the law, as Shapiro points out. Rather, that is simply propaganda your side is trying to sell to those who, apparently, are incapable of critical thought.
Exactly. A product of the Postmodernist mindset.
then originalism is invalid
Brilliantly argued, JR. /s
Please explain how this represents political maneuvering rather than a determination of what the Constitution intended.
There is nothing about any of this "in" the Constitution, because the framers never imagined that a president might be a criminal. The current SC invented "presumed immunity" from thin air.
You must be talking about the criminal that Democrats put into the White House in 2020.
As for the SC inventing things from thin air- any defender of Roe v Wade has no room to talk.
When the Supreme Court determined the president had absolute immunity from lawsuits 40 years ago (trump case applied the same reasoning) did you demand Reagan pack the court to overturn it or the oldest judges, who were liberal, be term limited?
Of course not, because everyone realized it was a reasonable application of precedent stretching back to the Aaron Burr case at the dawn of the republic. No one tried to destroy the independence of the court over it. But modern progressives cannot play by the rules if they don’t get everything they want, when they want it, so the court has to be destroyed and remade as an extension of the progressive caucus.
maga is about to be educated on that legal concept in november.
The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention "presidential immunity
Yet the court found absolute immunity for a president 40 plus years ago.
what steps do you and Joe Biden take to reform the court over that?
The issue of presidential immunity remains a complex and evolving aspect of constitutional law
yes. It is, which is why it’s so bizarre to see the overreaction to a decision that simply reflects 200 years of precedent. Saying it’s wrong is one thing. Using it as a justification to destroy the court in fit of partisan rage is just insane.
framers never imagined that a president might be a criminal.
also, 100% wrong.
If that is true, what is the purpose of Article II, section 4?