Do businesses normally close in Minneapolis when it is cold ?
Not for -7 F temperatures. When the thermometer drops to -20 or below, outdoor work typically becomes restricted to only essential work. Otherwise businesses remain open although usually with less staffing. You kinda want people on the premises if something breaks or there's problem with services.
The coldest I experienced was a high of -36 F. And I was expected to report for work. (That's when I was a damned gubmit' worker.)
In Minnesota the temperature can stay below 0 F for weeks.
Patriotic Americans across the country should be extremely proud of the people of Minneapolis today. I was watching TV and it looked like the entire city turned out.
All of this unnecessary. All of this a result of those who inexplicably voted for and support Trump.
There's not a damned thing voters can do the get Trump out of office now. Everything depends upon Congressional Democrats who do not have spines and Congressional Republicans who do not have balls. Screaming at the sky, blaming voters, won't change one damned thing.
Prior to that, public opinion polls do affect behavior in Washington.
But any short term action indeed can only come from Congress. Seems to me the Ds would be all in for putting a cage and muzzle on Trump. It is the Rs who are doing the opposite of that.
But any short term action indeed can only come from Congress. Seems to me the Ds would be all in for putting a cage and muzzle on Trump. It is the Rs who are doing the opposite of that.
People are being attacked on the streets by politically motivated goons who use the most violence to achieve the least law enforcement. Congress is a corrupt institution and rewarding that corruption in the voting booth is not an answer.
The only only legal recourse at this point are the courts. If the courts fail then what are people supposed to do? Just grin and bear it? The people protesting in -7 F temperatures are not trying to shield immigrants. The situation has devolved beyond the issue of immigration. The protests are becoming a power struggle between Big Government and the people of the United States.
If Congress is not controlled by the GOP, it would restrain Trump (e.g. end his abuse of tariffs).
Democrats did not restrain Trump during the 1st term.
What are Democrats going to do? Shut down government and punish voters? Hold prime time Congressional hearings? Install a revolving door on the Supreme Court? Host another round of race riots? Weaponize Hillary Clinton?
"If Congress is not controlled by the GOP, it would restrain Trump (e.g. end his abuse of tariffs)."
So can the SCotUS, but its delay is no surprise to me, nor would it surprise me if it found some way to allow Turmp to fuck the rest of the world AND American shoppers..
Right off the bat, Congress authorizes tariffs, not the PotUS. Only under exceptional conditions can a PotUS impose tariffs. Congress controlled by the Ds can immediately stop Trump's tariffs.
Even though the current Congress is effectively a rubber stamp for Trump, that is not how our system has worked and definitely not how is should work per our CotUS. Operating as a coequal branch that holds the Executive branch in check is the key.
And given the depravity of the current PotUS, I (unusual for me), would entirely support immediate impeachment and conviction. Trump has provided a great case for removing an irresponsible PotUS who is damaging our nation, damaging international relationships, violating the law and the CotUS, etc. If this nation was ready to convict Nixon for covering up a third-rate spying on the Ds, then impeaching Trump has been justified since day one when he trashed out international relationships. And that is just the beginning of the list.
The SCotUS has both surprised and disappointed me. I have never seen a SCotUS cater to a PotUS like this one does. And I remain amazed that they would actually go to the level of contradicting the CotUS and grant a level of immunity not provided in the CotUS, expressly precluded in the CotUS, and against the very spirit of the CotUS and the rule of law.
. And I remain amazed that they would actually go to the level of contradicting the CotUS and grant a level of immunity not provided in the CotUS, expressly precluded in the CotUS
The president—or the former president—is not a king. Our brief made three principal points.
First, constitutional text and history do not support President Trump’s broad immunity claim. The text of the Constitution provides a form of immunity for legislators under the Speech or Debate Clause, but not for sitting or former presidents. In other words, the framers knew how to draft immunity language, but chose not to do so for presidents . Seeking to distinguish the president from a British King , the Constitution’s framers and ratifiers repeatedly indicated that a president , in the words of James Iredell, was “punishable by the laws of his country” and “not exempt from a trial.”
Second, Supreme Court precedent does not support Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held that the president enjoys immunity from civil damages claims for certain actions taken while in office, but it did not address immunity from criminal prosecution. And significantly, the rationales the Court relied upon in Fitzgerald do not support Trump’s claims. Fitzgerald specifically distinguished a president’s civil damages liability from instances in which a president faces criminal prosecution, where the “interest to be served” by exposing the president to liability are much greater.
Finally, the Impeachment Judgment Clause does not bar the prosecution of a former president, even following an acquittal in impeachment proceedings. In prescribing that a “Party convicted” is subject to indictment , the Clause does not silently prohibit indictment of a party acquitted in impeachment proceedings, nor does it differentiate between the President and other officials. Instead, the Clause makes clear that while the only penalty that the Senate can impose following impeachment is removal from office, a “Party convicted” may still be subject to additional punishment through the nation’s criminal legal system . The framers viewed the impeachment process as entirely distinct from criminal prosecution and thus thought that the result of one proceeding should have no impact on the other. They saw impeachment as “a proceeding purely of a political nature,” completely unrelated to “ordinary jurisprudence.” This is true for every federal officer subject to impeachment, including the president.
In sum, because there is no basis in constitutional text and history or Supreme Court precedent for Trump’s immunity claims, the Supreme Court should have rejected it.
Your SCotUS started losing my respect when it deprived women of the right of abortion but it lost it totally when it amended "No man is above the law." In my opinion that is an ABSOLUTE which cannot be amended for any reason whatsoever.
Immediate impeachment and conviction is not only appropriate it is the only rational course of action. There is a downside, of course. We would then have Vance as President and he is poisonous. His closest supporter, Peter Thiel, who funds Vance's political career, is an avowed opponent of democracy. Elevating Vance to the presidency would be a disaster, but even that is not reason enough to retain Trump. Either way, we are not in a good position, however, having at least the House of Representatives (and preferrably the Senate, too) under Democratic control should help.
Right off the bat, Congress authorizes tariffs, not the PotUS. Only under exceptional conditions can a PotUS impose tariffs. Congress controlled by the Ds can immediately stop Trump's tariffs.
Trump imposed tariffs during the 1st term. Biden did not eliminate the tariffs and increased some of the tariffs.
Even though the current Congress is effectively a rubber stamp for Trump, that is not how our system has worked and definitely not how is should work per our CotUS. Operating as a coequal branch that holds the Executive branch in check is the key.
Doesn't prevent Democrats running to the courts the way they did during the 1st term. Democrats didn't do that much to stop Trump. Trump was still building his wall, with or without Congress.
And given the depravity of the current PotUS, I (unusual for me), would entirely support immediate impeachment and conviction. Trump has provided a great case for removing an irresponsible PotUS who is damaging our nation, damaging international relationships, violating the law and the CotUS, etc. If this nation was ready to convict Nixon for covering up a third-rate spying on the Ds, then impeaching Trump has been justified since day one when he trashed out international relationships. And that is just the beginning of the list.
The reality is that Trump does not see Congress as threat no matter which party is in control. Democrats can't get away with encouraging race riots across the country this time. Democrat's efforts to convict Trump didn't keep him out of the White House. Joe Biden using the magic autopen couldn't keep Trump out of the White House.
At some point both parties are going to be forced to recognize that voters are more important than party bosses. If Democrats continue to only think about voters during election years, they're not going to stop Trump. As you have whined, voters put Trump in office. Not donors, party bosses, or media influencers.
Again, you are trying to bluff with overheated rhetoric that doesn't withstand any scrutiny. As to your claim the Court "contradicted" the COTUS, let's ask CHATGPT:.
Does Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution address Presidential immunity?
No. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 does not address presidential immunity.
What the clause does say is limited and specific:
It caps the consequences of impeachment at removal and disqualification, and it makes clear that an impeached official remains “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
What it does not do:
It does not mention immunity (presidential or otherwise)
It does not say when a President may be prosecuted
It does not distinguish between official and unofficial acts
It does not eliminate possible defenses recognized by courts
So, textually, the clause:
clarifies that impeachment is not a substitute for criminal prosecution,
but is silent on whether a President has criminal immunity, temporary or permanent.
That, of course, is obvious to anyone who can read and your bluster doesn't change that. The really funny thing is you admit the President is entitled to some immunity. No surprise, even the Biden admin claimed that in it's argument. Your dispute is a simply a question of degree, which whether you understand or it not, makes your claim to believe the Court "contradicted the constitution" incredibly ironic, because your own position "contradicts the COTUS" in the exact same way.
And his use of tariffs then were in line with the authority granted a PotUS by Congress. Back then he had real people (not sycophants) as advisors. In his second term, he is using tariffs as a threat and imposing tariffs to (in his twisted mind) coerce nations to do his bidding. A PotUS can, as in his first term, use tariffs to deal with clearly unfair trade practices. Trump, in his second term, merely declares practices unfair (not bound to reality) and then uses them as a weapon. Nowadays, he does not even declare ... just imposes cavalierly. This exceeds his authority as provided by § 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and § 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Sections 232 and 301 authorize tariffs only as targeted responses to documented national-security threats or demonstrable unfair trade practices, not as weapons for coercion.
Trump is out of control in his second term.
Doesn't prevent Democrats running to the courts the way they did during the 1st term. Democrats didn't do that much to stop Trump. Trump was still building his wall, with or without Congress.
What makes you think the Ds are not using the courts?
The reality is that Trump does not see Congress as threat no matter which party is in control.
Probably, he lives in his own little world. I have not advocated reasoning with Trump. My point is that the best remedy comes from Congress. So this can come about by Congress growing a spine in response to Trump's high disapproval or, most likely, by the Ds controlling Congress and taking action such as:
Revising statutes, establish legal standing dealing with executive authority (unfortunately needs to be veto proof)
Restricting funding
Oversight to publicly expose abuse
Impeachment
The action I believe correct is impeachment and conviction. But conviction would likely fail in the Senate.
As you have whined, voters put Trump in office.
Why do you insert this obnoxious phrasing? To what end? To encourage me to treat you as a hostile?
At some point both parties are going to be forced to recognize that voters are more important than party bosses.
I copied and pasted your prompt in a brand new chat to ChatGPT.
Prompt: Does Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution address Presidential immunity?
Response:
No. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 does not grant or define Presidential immunity. It addresses the limits of punishment following impeachment , not immunity from criminal or civil liability.
What the clause actually says
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 provides that:
Judgment in impeachment cases is limited to removal from office and disqualification from holding future office , but
The impeached individual “ shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. ”
What this means in plain terms
Impeachment is a political remedy , not a criminal one.
Congress cannot imprison, fine, or otherwise criminally punish someone through impeachment.
After impeachment (or even without impeachment), the person may still face ordinary criminal prosecution in the courts .
What it does not do
It does not say a President has immunity from prosecution.
It does not create temporary or permanent immunity.
It does not condition prosecution on impeachment first.
Why this clause is often misunderstood
Some arguments claim the clause implies that prosecution can only occur after impeachment. The text does not support that reading. It says “nevertheless,” meaning impeachment does not block prosecution. It does not say impeachment is a prerequisite.
Where Presidential immunity actually comes from
Presidential immunity, to the extent it exists, is derived from:
Supreme Court case law , not the Constitution’s text
Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): civil immunity for official acts
Clinton v. Jones (1997): no immunity for unofficial acts
Trump v. United States (2024): partial criminal immunity for core constitutional acts
Separation of powers reasoning , not Article I
Bottom line
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
Limits what Congress can do in impeachment
Explicitly preserves criminal liability
Does not establish, define, or endorse Presidential immunity
If you want, I can also walk through how courts reconcile this clause with modern immunity doctrine, or explain why the clause is cited so often in current debates despite not doing the work people claim it does.
Not surprising, ChatGPT backs up the legal analysis I provided @3.1.10 (repeated below).
Again, you are trying to bluff with overheated rhetoric that doesn't withstand any scrutiny.
You label this (below) serious legal treatment as a " bluff with overheated rhetoric " yet fail to support your ridiculous claim. You have yet again posted bullshit.
The president—or the former president—is not a king. Our brief made three principal points.
First, constitutional text and history do not support President Trump’s broad immunity claim. The text of the Constitution provides a form of immunity for legislators under the Speech or Debate Clause, but not for sitting or former presidents. In other words, the framers knew how to draft immunity language, but chose not to do so for presidents . Seeking to distinguish the president from a British King , the Constitution’s framers and ratifiers repeatedly indicated that a president , in the words of James Iredell, was “punishable by the laws of his country” and “not exempt from a trial.”
Second, Supreme Court precedent does not support Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held that the president enjoys immunity from civil damages claims for certain actions taken while in office, but it did not address immunity from criminal prosecution. And significantly, the rationales the Court relied upon in Fitzgerald do not support Trump’s claims. Fitzgerald specifically distinguished a president’s civil damages liability from instances in which a president faces criminal prosecution, where the “interest to be served” by exposing the president to liability are much greater.
Finally, the Impeachment Judgment Clause does not bar the prosecution of a former president, even following an acquittal in impeachment proceedings. In prescribing that a “Party convicted” is subject to indictment , the Clause does not silently prohibit indictment of a party acquitted in impeachment proceedings, nor does it differentiate between the President and other officials. Instead, the Clause makes clear that while the only penalty that the Senate can impose following impeachment is removal from office, a “Party convicted” may still be subject to additional punishment through the nation’s criminal legal system . The framers viewed the impeachment process as entirely distinct from criminal prosecution and thus thought that the result of one proceeding should have no impact on the other. They saw impeachment as “a proceeding purely of a political nature,” completely unrelated to “ordinary jurisprudence.” This is true for every federal officer subject to impeachment, including the president.
In sum, because there is no basis in constitutional text and history or Supreme Court precedent for Trump’s immunity claims, the Supreme Court should have rejected it.
I agree, but the Senate will almost certainly fail to get a 2/3 vote for conviction because there will be too many Trump sycophants who will not convict (probably no matter what he does).
More of the same an empathically claimed conclusion based throwing words at the wall and hoping gullible people simply accept your spin without bothering to read it. Nothing you cited contradicts what I wrote. If you think it does, you don't understand it.
You obviously can't cite a single clause in the Constitution the ruling contradicts because it doesn't. Your opinion on the extent of the immunity a President has is more limited than than the Courts. That's it. If you think "immunity" contradicts the Constitution than you'd oppose all immunity (and 200 years of precedent on privilege, separation of powers etc..) . But you admittedly don't., so it's silly to claim the Court's opinion is some great evil because it contradicts the Constitution when by that logic, yours and the Biden admin, centuries of precedent and pretty much every mainstream legal commentor opinions contradict the Constitution as well.
An actual of example of the Court contradicting language is when it ruled that language declaring that discrimination on the basis of race is illegal should be interpreted as allowing people to discriminate on the basis of race. That's an actual contradiction, which I'm going to guess doesn't bother you much at all.
Article I Section 3, Senate Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law
Just stop with the bullshit responses Sean. You clearly have no case and you ignoring the words cited in the CotUS claiming that they do not exist shows that it is pointless to try to reason with you.
You offer nothing more than a verbose 'nuh-uh' while ignoring the content that I posted.
You clearly have no case and you ignoring the words cited in the CotUS claiming that they do not exist shows that it is pointless to try to reason with you.
Show the exact clause in the Constitution the ruling contradicts. That' what you claimed. Back it up.
But you know and I know you can't. Last time you big example was an excerpt of Roberts that you thought demonstrated just extreme Robert's opinion was and it was on a point the Biden DOJ agreed with.. Rather than admit that and make principled arguments you rely on bombastic conclusions and hyperbole you can't support.
Your SCotUS started losing my respect when it deprived women of the right of abortion
No, you're wrong on this. SCOTUS did not deprive women of the right to an abortion, it returned control of abortion to the states as it determined that the ruling in Roe v Wade was not correct. I don't like the result as it brought us back to the 60's with a patchwork of laws across the country. I would rather have a single law at the federal level. But the decision to end Roe v Wade was the correct one.
Article I Section 3, Senate Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments
States clear as a bell that an impeached and convicted party is still liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Nowhere does it state that a PotUS is excluded from being held criminally liable.
Further, nowhere in our CotUS does it state that a PotUS is above the law.
Just as my legal source and ChatGPT has described (in detail).
At some point both parties are going to be forced to recognize that voters are more important than party bosses.
I don't believe that will happen, there's too much money and power in the two parties and they won't willingly give that up. And despite what a politician may say while in front of a camera, I don't believe any of them think of the voters or the people of the country. They come out asking for our votes during the election cycles but that doesn't equate to caring about us.
A President can still be criminally liable for his acts under the Roberts standard.
Correct, the specifics are: PotUS is granted (by the SCotUS) absolute immunity for the use of any core constitutional powers. SCotUS also granted presumptive immunity for official acts which forces a court to prove that prosecution would not intrude into executive functions. Unofficial acts or private conduct have no immunity.
Now, does it escape you that absolute and presumptive immunity for criminal acts does not exist anywhere in the CotUS? That this contradicts the underlying premise of rule of law (versus rule of man) in the CotUS? That this contradicts: "still liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."?
No, of course not, you are going to claim that none of this is true. Your posts cannot be taken seriously.
escape you that absolute and presumptive immunity for criminal acts does not exist anywhere in the CotUS?
Neither does privilege or immunity of any kind. Like the Biden DOJ, you've always claimed you support "some immunity" for the President " Have you backtracked? Do you want to overturn the Fitzgerald court too and all the precedent back to the Marshall court?
Like the Biden DOJ, you've always claimed you support "some immunity" for the President " Have you backtracked?
I have never once claimed that the CotUS provides any criminal immunity for a PotUS. It does not even provide civil immunity. I understand why civil immunity is necessary due to the low bar and highly subjective nature of civil lawsuits and thus do not object in principle to Nixon v. Fitzgerald but even that is extra constitutional (albeit it does not directly contradict it).
Criminal immunity is very different from civil immunity in that we are talking about the law itself (not subjective charges) and the PotUS should not be above the law.
Informally, I accept good legal judgment that considers the special circumstances under which a PotUS must operate. That does not preclude indicting a PotUS and having a fair trial to determine if his actions were indeed criminal and warrant punishment.
Bottom line, never have I held that a PotUS should be immune from criminal charges / prosecution. A PotUS must abide by the law.
Thianks for the correction, Snuffy. I'll change what I said to the fact that the reversal of Roe vs Wade made it impossible or much more difficult for many women to get an abortion in America depending on the varying laws of the states. Now is that correct? I still say it's regressive. I assume those judges who voted for that have investments in wire hanger companies and funeral homes..
nottom line, never have I held that a PotUS should be immune from criminal charges / prosecution. .
If you say so. I distinctly remember you claiming that Presidents do deserve some immunity for actions performing their Presidential duties. But I guess you've outed yourself now as an ultra strict constructionist, a Scalia on steroids. .
I can't wait to see you apply that standard consistently across the board.
P.S. Claiming simply repeating that something "contradicts" a document, when even your own favored chatgpt says otherwise, doesn't help your argument. It just makes you lose credibility.
That is the sad reality. If enough Republican Senators had voted to convict him previously they could have also voted to bar him from holding office again.
There is a logical need for some level of immunity and we have survived (until now) on that basic principle sans clear definition.
I would have no objection to the SCotUS carving out a clear boundary for immunity (if possible) that would grant immunity only for responsible acts by a PotUS.
I looked at one more that I thought was pretty funny.
" Neither I nor anyone here nor anyone I have ever encountered has argued that the president should have no immunity. But you are fuckin up those straw men, for sure." "I think there should be some level of qualified or presumptive immunity for the president performing his duties."
Guess who thumbed up these claims including that I was inventing strawmen by claiming some were arguing that Presidents should have no immunity....
I distinctly remember you claiming that Presidents do deserve some immunity for actions performing their Presidential duties.
If you were to carefully read what I just wrote directly to you in reply, you would understand my position (and thus explain your recollection).
In particular, read this:
TiG@3.1.30 ☞ I understand why civil immunity is necessary due to the low bar and highly subjective nature of civil lawsuits and thus do not object in principle to Nixon v. Fitzgerald but even that is extra constitutional (albeit it does not directly contradict it).
then this:
TiG@3.1.30 ☞ Informally, I accept good legal judgment that considers the special circumstances under which a PotUS must operate. That does not preclude indicting a PotUS and having a fair trial to determine if his actions were indeed criminal and warrant punishment.
This is actually funny (in a sick way). The desperate degree of sophistry you are taking to argue your bullshit claim is amusing.
First of all, Sean, did you actually read what Tacos! wrote in your quote? He stated that nobody has argued that a president should have NO immunity. Now look at @3.1.36 and attempt to match that sentiment.
Second, I directly replied to your criticism of Tacos! comment. How funny that you try to make a case of me voting up someone else's comment while ignoring my own words on that very comment.
Slimy ... at best. Here is my reply to you regarding that comment:
TiG @5.1.17 ( external ) ☞ And now you totally blur the distinction between some level of immunity and the absolute, presumptive, and inadmissibility protections invented by the SCotUS. Our history has provided some implicit immunity for PotUS and this immunity was exacted in our legal system.
The SCotUS preempted much of the discretion of the legal system and made it impossible (for core constitutional duties) and very difficult (for all other official acts) to hold a rogue PotUS legally accountable for crimes while in office.
Nobody that I have seen has ever claimed that the the PotUS should have NO immunity. The objection has been the extraordinary blanket immunities invented by the SCotUS which largely prevent the specifics of a criminal act by a PotUS to be dealt with normally by our legal system.
With that, I'm done.
You sure as hell are 'done'; toast! Yet again, your little sophistry has been exposed. Dishonesty on top of dishonesty from you.
On the first article, I presume you are referring to this:
TiG @1.2.1 ( external ) ☞ There is a logical need for some level of immunity and we have survived (until now) on that basic principle sans clear definition. It has been a non-problem. Trump made it a problem. Now the SCotUS has codified an invented absolute immunity for whatever might be considered core constitutional acts and an invented presumptive immunity for any official act.
Right here I distinguish between some level of immunity (e.g. the legal system giving a PotUS leeway; they system we had) and the absolute, presumptive, etc. immunity it just invented.
Now, compare that with what I wrote here:
TiG @3.1.30 ☞ I have never once claimed that the CotUS provides any criminal immunity for a PotUS.
Do you recognize the difference between immunity granted in the CotUS and some (as in limited, conditional, situation-dependent) immunity provided by precedent (albeit not in the CotUS)?
So, again, your slimy sophistry is exposed.
On the second article, I have no idea what you are referring to given this is my article and I have written all sorts of comments on it. I will guess based on proximity to your comments that you are referring to this:
TiG@6.2 ( external ) ☞ The reason for immunity, as argued by Trump's attorneys and as embraced by the majority is so that a PotUS can freely exercise his/her powers of office without fear of personal legal liability. For example, the many varied decisions made by war-time presidents such as the decision to kill Osama Bin Laden. This is a solution, however, for a problem that has never manifested. And the problem is that it codifies categorical immunity.
And like the others, nowhere do I claim that presidential immunity is in the CotUS. As always, I recognize the precedent that has granted, in effect, leeway for presidents based on the unique circumstances of their office. But none of this is codified in the CotUS. It remains that the CotUS does not grant a PotUS special powers to violate the law and not be held legally accountable.
SUMMARY
I stated that the CotUS does not provide legal immunity for a PotUS who commits a crime. It even explicitly holds that an impeached PotUS can still be held legally liable for crimes.
You have taken my position that there has been some defacto immunity granted to presidents (because that is reality) and dishonestly pretend that I stated that this was in the CotUS.
Thianks for the correction, Snuffy. I'll change what I said to the fact that the reversal of Roe vs Wade made it impossible or much more difficult for many women to get an abortion in America depending on the varying laws of the states. Now is that correct? I still say it's regressive. I assume those judges who voted for that have investments in wire hanger companies and funeral homes..
Yes, that is correct. Some states have made it very difficult if not impossible for a woman to get an abortion. As I said, I don't like the outcome as it's taken us back to the 1960's where we have a patchwork of laws. I would much rather there be a single federal law to cover this. Unfortunately with our current Congress I doubt if that will change anytime soon. But I do agree with the SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe v Wade as it was a bad decision by the court. Perhaps if SCOTUS had framed Roe v Wade differently it would have held up better, but when even RBG says the initial decision was bad that says a lot.
Exactly. If I had not seen it and heard it myself I would never have believed the SCOTUS would ever have betrayed the US and its people in such a blatant manner. It is obvious that when the Trump picked SCOTUS took their oath they had already sold their soul to the Devil and America and it's people be damned.
But, unless they honor their oath, their price in the end will be far more than they ever thought.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It has been reported that hundreds of Minnesota businesses have closed for the day in support of the strike.
In Minus 23 degree weather???? Businesses closed ?
Do businesses normally close in Minneapolis when it is cold ?
Lots of places close when the wind chill approaches -40 and people tend not to patronize them unless they need to.
if "we love castro bead store" closes today, I doubt many people notice.
Not for -7 F temperatures. When the thermometer drops to -20 or below, outdoor work typically becomes restricted to only essential work. Otherwise businesses remain open although usually with less staffing. You kinda want people on the premises if something breaks or there's problem with services.
The coldest I experienced was a high of -36 F. And I was expected to report for work. (That's when I was a damned gubmit' worker.)
In Minnesota the temperature can stay below 0 F for weeks.
I suspect Minnesotans have a higher tolerance for frigid weather than you think.
Patriotic Americans across the country should be extremely proud of the people of Minneapolis today. I was watching TV and it looked like the entire city turned out.
All of this unnecessary. All of this a result of those who inexplicably voted for and support Trump.
There's not a damned thing voters can do the get Trump out of office now. Everything depends upon Congressional Democrats who do not have spines and Congressional Republicans who do not have balls. Screaming at the sky, blaming voters, won't change one damned thing.
Voters can act during the midterms.
Prior to that, public opinion polls do affect behavior in Washington.
But any short term action indeed can only come from Congress. Seems to me the Ds would be all in for putting a cage and muzzle on Trump. It is the Rs who are doing the opposite of that.
Trump is not on the ballot during the midterms.
People are being attacked on the streets by politically motivated goons who use the most violence to achieve the least law enforcement. Congress is a corrupt institution and rewarding that corruption in the voting booth is not an answer.
The only only legal recourse at this point are the courts. If the courts fail then what are people supposed to do? Just grin and bear it? The people protesting in -7 F temperatures are not trying to shield immigrants. The situation has devolved beyond the issue of immigration. The protests are becoming a power struggle between Big Government and the people of the United States.
Of course not. Surely you know what I am talking about.
If Congress is not controlled by the GOP, it would restrain Trump (e.g. end his abuse of tariffs).
Democrats did not restrain Trump during the 1st term.
What are Democrats going to do? Shut down government and punish voters? Hold prime time Congressional hearings? Install a revolving door on the Supreme Court? Host another round of race riots? Weaponize Hillary Clinton?
Where's the beef?
The Democrats impeached Trump twice and he deserved it both times.
It is time for the Republicans to step up.
You dont need to both sides this.
So can the SCotUS, but its delay is no surprise to me, nor would it surprise me if it found some way to allow Turmp to fuck the rest of the world AND American shoppers..
Right off the bat, Congress authorizes tariffs, not the PotUS. Only under exceptional conditions can a PotUS impose tariffs. Congress controlled by the Ds can immediately stop Trump's tariffs.
Even though the current Congress is effectively a rubber stamp for Trump, that is not how our system has worked and definitely not how is should work per our CotUS. Operating as a coequal branch that holds the Executive branch in check is the key.
And given the depravity of the current PotUS, I (unusual for me), would entirely support immediate impeachment and conviction. Trump has provided a great case for removing an irresponsible PotUS who is damaging our nation, damaging international relationships, violating the law and the CotUS, etc. If this nation was ready to convict Nixon for covering up a third-rate spying on the Ds, then impeaching Trump has been justified since day one when he trashed out international relationships. And that is just the beginning of the list.
The SCotUS has both surprised and disappointed me. I have never seen a SCotUS cater to a PotUS like this one does. And I remain amazed that they would actually go to the level of contradicting the CotUS and grant a level of immunity not provided in the CotUS, expressly precluded in the CotUS, and against the very spirit of the CotUS and the rule of law.
Except they never did, and you know that.
Denial in support of Trump. How unusual.
Your SCotUS started losing my respect when it deprived women of the right of abortion but it lost it totally when it amended "No man is above the law." In my opinion that is an ABSOLUTE which cannot be amended for any reason whatsoever.
Immediate impeachment and conviction is not only appropriate it is the only rational course of action. There is a downside, of course. We would then have Vance as President and he is poisonous. His closest supporter, Peter Thiel, who funds Vance's political career, is an avowed opponent of democracy. Elevating Vance to the presidency would be a disaster, but even that is not reason enough to retain Trump. Either way, we are not in a good position, however, having at least the House of Representatives (and preferrably the Senate, too) under Democratic control should help.
Trump imposed tariffs during the 1st term. Biden did not eliminate the tariffs and increased some of the tariffs.
Doesn't prevent Democrats running to the courts the way they did during the 1st term. Democrats didn't do that much to stop Trump. Trump was still building his wall, with or without Congress.
The reality is that Trump does not see Congress as threat no matter which party is in control. Democrats can't get away with encouraging race riots across the country this time. Democrat's efforts to convict Trump didn't keep him out of the White House. Joe Biden using the magic autopen couldn't keep Trump out of the White House.
At some point both parties are going to be forced to recognize that voters are more important than party bosses. If Democrats continue to only think about voters during election years, they're not going to stop Trump. As you have whined, voters put Trump in office. Not donors, party bosses, or media influencers.
Again, you are trying to bluff with overheated rhetoric that doesn't withstand any scrutiny. As to your claim the Court "contradicted" the COTUS, let's ask CHATGPT:.
Does Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution address Presidential immunity?
No. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 does not address presidential immunity.
What the clause does say is limited and specific:
It caps the consequences of impeachment at removal and disqualification, and it makes clear that an impeached official remains “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
What it does not do:
It does not mention immunity (presidential or otherwise)
It does not say when a President may be prosecuted
It does not distinguish between official and unofficial acts
It does not eliminate possible defenses recognized by courts
So, textually, the clause:
clarifies that impeachment is not a substitute for criminal prosecution,
but is silent on whether a President has criminal immunity, temporary or permanent.
That, of course, is obvious to anyone who can read and your bluster doesn't change that. The really funny thing is you admit the President is entitled to some immunity. No surprise, even the Biden admin claimed that in it's argument. Your dispute is a simply a question of degree, which whether you understand or it not, makes your claim to believe the Court "contradicted the constitution" incredibly ironic, because your own position "contradicts the COTUS" in the exact same way.
It's pretty funny when you think about it
I have no idea what you think that means, and the Court certainly didn't claim that. You should read the decision.
[✘]
And his use of tariffs then were in line with the authority granted a PotUS by Congress. Back then he had real people (not sycophants) as advisors. In his second term, he is using tariffs as a threat and imposing tariffs to (in his twisted mind) coerce nations to do his bidding. A PotUS can, as in his first term, use tariffs to deal with clearly unfair trade practices. Trump, in his second term, merely declares practices unfair (not bound to reality) and then uses them as a weapon. Nowadays, he does not even declare ... just imposes cavalierly. This exceeds his authority as provided by § 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and § 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Sections 232 and 301 authorize tariffs only as targeted responses to documented national-security threats or demonstrable unfair trade practices, not as weapons for coercion.
Trump is out of control in his second term.
What makes you think the Ds are not using the courts?
Probably, he lives in his own little world. I have not advocated reasoning with Trump. My point is that the best remedy comes from Congress. So this can come about by Congress growing a spine in response to Trump's high disapproval or, most likely, by the Ds controlling Congress and taking action such as:
Revising statutes, establish legal standing dealing with executive authority (unfortunately needs to be veto proof)
Restricting funding
Oversight to publicly expose abuse
Impeachment
The action I believe correct is impeachment and conviction. But conviction would likely fail in the Senate.
Why do you insert this obnoxious phrasing? To what end? To encourage me to treat you as a hostile?
When?
I copied and pasted your prompt in a brand new chat to ChatGPT.
Prompt: Does Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution address Presidential immunity?
Response:
Not surprising, ChatGPT backs up the legal analysis I provided @3.1.10 (repeated below).
You label this (below) serious legal treatment as a " bluff with overheated rhetoric " yet fail to support your ridiculous claim. You have yet again posted bullshit.
I agree, but the Senate will almost certainly fail to get a 2/3 vote for conviction because there will be too many Trump sycophants who will not convict (probably no matter what he does).
More of the same an empathically claimed conclusion based throwing words at the wall and hoping gullible people simply accept your spin without bothering to read it. Nothing you cited contradicts what I wrote. If you think it does, you don't understand it.
You obviously can't cite a single clause in the Constitution the ruling contradicts because it doesn't. Your opinion on the extent of the immunity a President has is more limited than than the Courts. That's it. If you think "immunity" contradicts the Constitution than you'd oppose all immunity (and 200 years of precedent on privilege, separation of powers etc..) . But you admittedly don't., so it's silly to claim the Court's opinion is some great evil because it contradicts the Constitution when by that logic, yours and the Biden admin, centuries of precedent and pretty much every mainstream legal commentor opinions contradict the Constitution as well.
An actual of example of the Court contradicting language is when it ruled that language declaring that discrimination on the basis of race is illegal should be interpreted as allowing people to discriminate on the basis of race. That's an actual contradiction, which I'm going to guess doesn't bother you much at all.
Just stop with the bullshit responses Sean. You clearly have no case and you ignoring the words cited in the CotUS claiming that they do not exist shows that it is pointless to try to reason with you.
You offer nothing more than a verbose 'nuh-uh' while ignoring the content that I posted.
Show the exact clause in the Constitution the ruling contradicts. That' what you claimed. Back it up.
But you know and I know you can't. Last time you big example was an excerpt of Roberts that you thought demonstrated just extreme Robert's opinion was and it was on a point the Biden DOJ agreed with.. Rather than admit that and make principled arguments you rely on bombastic conclusions and hyperbole you can't support.
It is what it is.
No, you're wrong on this. SCOTUS did not deprive women of the right to an abortion, it returned control of abortion to the states as it determined that the ruling in Roe v Wade was not correct. I don't like the result as it brought us back to the 60's with a patchwork of laws across the country. I would rather have a single law at the federal level. But the decision to end Roe v Wade was the correct one.
Article I Section 3, Senate Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments
States clear as a bell that an impeached and convicted party is still liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Nowhere does it state that a PotUS is excluded from being held criminally liable.
Further, nowhere in our CotUS does it state that a PotUS is above the law.
Just as my legal source and ChatGPT has described (in detail).
A President can still be criminally liable for his acts under the Roberts standard.
I don't believe that will happen, there's too much money and power in the two parties and they won't willingly give that up. And despite what a politician may say while in front of a camera, I don't believe any of them think of the voters or the people of the country. They come out asking for our votes during the election cycles but that doesn't equate to caring about us.
Correct, the specifics are: PotUS is granted (by the SCotUS) absolute immunity for the use of any core constitutional powers. SCotUS also granted presumptive immunity for official acts which forces a court to prove that prosecution would not intrude into executive functions. Unofficial acts or private conduct have no immunity.
Now, does it escape you that absolute and presumptive immunity for criminal acts does not exist anywhere in the CotUS? That this contradicts the underlying premise of rule of law (versus rule of man) in the CotUS? That this contradicts: "still liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."?
No, of course not, you are going to claim that none of this is true. Your posts cannot be taken seriously.
Neither does privilege or immunity of any kind. Like the Biden DOJ, you've always claimed you support "some immunity" for the President " Have you backtracked? Do you want to overturn the Fitzgerald court too and all the precedent back to the Marshall court?
I have never once claimed that the CotUS provides any criminal immunity for a PotUS. It does not even provide civil immunity. I understand why civil immunity is necessary due to the low bar and highly subjective nature of civil lawsuits and thus do not object in principle to Nixon v. Fitzgerald but even that is extra constitutional (albeit it does not directly contradict it).
Criminal immunity is very different from civil immunity in that we are talking about the law itself (not subjective charges) and the PotUS should not be above the law.
Informally, I accept good legal judgment that considers the special circumstances under which a PotUS must operate. That does not preclude indicting a PotUS and having a fair trial to determine if his actions were indeed criminal and warrant punishment.
Bottom line, never have I held that a PotUS should be immune from criminal charges / prosecution. A PotUS must abide by the law.
Thianks for the correction, Snuffy. I'll change what I said to the fact that the reversal of Roe vs Wade made it impossible or much more difficult for many women to get an abortion in America depending on the varying laws of the states. Now is that correct? I still say it's regressive. I assume those judges who voted for that have investments in wire hanger companies and funeral homes..
If you say so. I distinctly remember you claiming that Presidents do deserve some immunity for actions performing their Presidential duties. But I guess you've outed yourself now as an ultra strict constructionist, a Scalia on steroids. .
I can't wait to see you apply that standard consistently across the board.
P.S. Claiming simply repeating that something "contradicts" a document, when even your own favored chatgpt says otherwise, doesn't help your argument. It just makes you lose credibility.
That is the sad reality. If enough Republican Senators had voted to convict him previously they could have also voted to bar him from holding office again.
I looked up two articles....
There is a logical need for some level of immunity and we have survived (until now) on that basic principle sans clear definition.
I would have no objection to the SCotUS carving out a clear boundary for immunity (if possible) that would grant immunity only for responsible acts by a PotUS.
I looked at one more that I thought was pretty funny.
Guess who thumbed up these claims including that I was inventing strawmen by claiming some were arguing that Presidents should have no immunity....
With that, I'm done.
If you were to carefully read what I just wrote directly to you in reply, you would understand my position (and thus explain your recollection).
In particular, read this:
then this:
This is actually funny (in a sick way). The desperate degree of sophistry you are taking to argue your bullshit claim is amusing.
First of all, Sean, did you actually read what Tacos! wrote in your quote? He stated that nobody has argued that a president should have NO immunity. Now look at @3.1.36 and attempt to match that sentiment.
Second, I directly replied to your criticism of Tacos! comment. How funny that you try to make a case of me voting up someone else's comment while ignoring my own words on that very comment.
Slimy ... at best. Here is my reply to you regarding that comment:
You sure as hell are 'done'; toast! Yet again, your little sophistry has been exposed. Dishonesty on top of dishonesty from you.
On the first article, I presume you are referring to this:
Right here I distinguish between some level of immunity (e.g. the legal system giving a PotUS leeway; they system we had) and the absolute, presumptive, etc. immunity it just invented.
Now, compare that with what I wrote here:
Do you recognize the difference between immunity granted in the CotUS and some (as in limited, conditional, situation-dependent) immunity provided by precedent (albeit not in the CotUS)?
So, again, your slimy sophistry is exposed.
On the second article, I have no idea what you are referring to given this is my article and I have written all sorts of comments on it. I will guess based on proximity to your comments that you are referring to this:
And like the others, nowhere do I claim that presidential immunity is in the CotUS. As always, I recognize the precedent that has granted, in effect, leeway for presidents based on the unique circumstances of their office. But none of this is codified in the CotUS. It remains that the CotUS does not grant a PotUS special powers to violate the law and not be held legally accountable.
SUMMARY
I stated that the CotUS does not provide legal immunity for a PotUS who commits a crime. It even explicitly holds that an impeached PotUS can still be held legally liable for crimes.
You have taken my position that there has been some defacto immunity granted to presidents (because that is reality) and dishonestly pretend that I stated that this was in the CotUS.
Pathetic. More dishonesty from you.
Exactly. If I had not seen it and heard it myself I would never have believed the SCOTUS would ever have betrayed the US and its people in such a blatant manner. It is obvious that when the Trump picked SCOTUS took their oath they had already sold their soul to the Devil and America and it's people be damned.
But, unless they honor their oath, their price in the end will be far more than they ever thought.