Live updates: Supreme Court rules Trump has presumptive criminal immunity for official acts
By: Rebecca Beitsch and Zach Schonfeld (The Hill)
SCOTUS has issued a Homer Simpson ruling (DOH!) that the President enjoys immunity for official acts. Why would anyone be surprised by that ruling?
Now the political punditry will be arguing over what constitutes official and unofficial acts. Naturally the media will ignore King Kong sitting in the corner. SCOTUS just put the big squeeze on Presidential power. Obviously the only way to limit Presidential immunity is to impose limits on the President's official authority.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In a monumental ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy a presumption of criminal immunity for official acts while in the White House, handing a win to former President Trump.
Trump’s appeal froze his federal election subversion indictment in the nation’s capital, where a federal court has charged him with conspiring to subvert the 2020 election results, from moving ahead toward trial.
The Supreme Court’s ruling comes four months before Election Day , when Trump hopes to retake the White House, giving him the authority to stop his prosecutions from proceeding and possibly firing special counsel Jack Smith.
More Court Battles News
Tags
Who is online
420 visitors
The Presidency is smaller today than it was yesterday. But everyone will be too busy chasing squirrels to pay attention to that fact.
Most people expected the Court to avoid this decision. It did not and in many ways was a major victory for Trump.
Cool, now we have a dictatorship. Joe Biden is free to do whatever he wants.
First thing he should do? Imprison trump, for life.
All Biden needs to do is make an official finding that Trump is an enemy combatant and hello Guantanamo. It would be an official act. Who could possibly complain?
where in the opinion do you imagine the president is granted the power to arbitrarily declare a non official act, an official one?[✘]
But... he isn't going to go simple. He's going to address it tonight on TV - his best new friend. How could that possibly backfire? He's looking for the sympathy vote, at this point.
Do you think Trump wants to be a plain vanilla dictator or does he want the full trappings of a monarchy?
Full trappings please!
If the case had been brought by Biden and not Trump (the claim of immunity) the decision would have been exactly the opposite . The conservative majority on the SC tailored this decision to advantage one person, the traitor.
Jack Smith should publish all his evidence in the New York Times and let the chips fall where they may.
I would love for you to show proof
Bullshit but I know you really believe that.
Yes, that is how our justice system works. Publish the entire case to the public and let them decide. No judge, no jury, no jurisprudence. Just public opinion
Remember, those are the same people who think Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty, George Floyd didn't overdose and Brittney Griner is a hero.
And Joe isn't mentally incompetent.....just old LOL.
The last 3 years and the debate show mental incompetence.
Just like Biden never would have been charged in NY, Georgia, and definitely not for him knowingly and willfully mishandling classified documents both from his time as a Senator and VP.
Charging Biden for any crime isn't even a blip on Democrats radar- no matter how much evidence there is.
In fact Garland is fighting tooth and nail to make sure that the Hur recorded interview with Biden isn't even allowed to the House committee investigating Biden. Garland also has a funny knack of bringing charges against those that Congress tries to get to testify against Biden in the investigation into Hunter's and Joe's brother's overseas money laundering schemes- which Joe has directly benefited from. Garland has been held in contempt of Congress; or course we all know that partisan jackass will never bring charges against himself; nor any Biden administration official.
Hur should just release all the evidence he has, along with the tapes of the interviews- and Biden's ghost writer tapes- to Fox News- and "let the chips fall where they may."
Why should the traitor Biden be protected?
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. I would say no matter what nothing will go to trial for at least a year, if ever.
I think your right , it's going to get interesting, now if it's educational interesting or batshit crazy interesting remains to be seen.
I think this ruling is going to make people take a real hard look at what the presidential job description really is , to include what executive powers and responsibilities a president has both as directed by the constitution, and by appropriate legislation.
What this ruling is saying to me, is that no president can be criminally charged for simply doing the job a president is suppose to be doing as outlined by the constitution and supporting legislation .
Trump wanted to appoint an election denier conspiracist as U.S. Attorney general. The rest of the high ranking DOJ officials threatened mass resignations if he went through with it.
This SC decision gives cover to Trump for all that, and that charge in the indictment must be dropped, even though there is numerous eyewitness testimony.
Does that sound like justice to you?
Trump should appoint his own version of Merrick Garland to make sure Democrats, and their accomplices in the FBI, CIA, DOJ, and IRS are held accountable for what has transpired for the last 8 years and counting. That includes bringing charges against Biden and his family.
Since Democrats and leftists don't know the meaning of the word justice; and don't think that laws apply to them.
Had to look some things up before I answered John.
I'm going to say nice attempted deflection due to what I looked up.
He may have wanted to nominate such a person and the threatened resignations may well have given pause for thought, but the position you mention as I pointed out isn't one he could have simple filled on his own,it is one that would have needed the consent of the Senate, which was unlikely with the make up it had at the time.
Gotta love those checks and balances.
Certainly! former President Donald Trump considered installing Jeffrey Clark as acting attorney general. However, the threat of mass resignations led Trump to back down from this plan. Clark’s involvement in Trump’s attempt to reverse the 2020 election outcome has drawn attention, but ultimately, the Justice Department will decide whether to bring any charges
I will give a partial mea culpa here John, and some cudos to those in the DOJ threatening resignations over such an act of trying to appoint a "acting" head of such a vital government agency.
My thought is that position should require senate approval be it temp or permanent.
So it would appear that the threat of resignations was an unseen and unthought of unlegislate check to an attempted abuse of power, which I think any president trying to circumvent the confirmation process by installing a temp or acting , is abusing the nomination power
Trump wanted to appoint Clark Attorney General even though he damn well knew what Clark was up to. It is disgraceful , and according to Jack Smith, illegal.
Now it cant even be used at trial to show Trump's criminal intent.
Disgraceful yes, illegal, no. Remember the phrase, "I work at the pleasure of the President."
Trump’s threatened removal of the Acting Attorney General is clearly an official action. It implicates “conclusive and preclusive” Presidential authority. The President’s power to remove “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed” may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts.
But but but..........oh shit
Trump had more "acting directors" and "acting cabinet members" than any POTUS before him including
6 "acting Attorneys General" at the beginning and end of his term.
Acting AGs Sally Yates and D Bonete preceded Sessions who was confirmed and eventually resigned, followed by Acting AG Whittaker then Barr (confirmed)
then the clown car full of Acting AGs Rosen, Demers and Wilkinson.
Zero checks and balances
Democrats used every trick in the book to delay appointments, leading to deep state “ resistance” hero’s like sally Yates who openly defied implementing legal orders
Like the opposition does? Like McConnel not allowing a SCOTUS appointment in an election year?
Like any of Tommy Tuberville's antics?
That Merry Go Round isn't new, it used be part of "checks and balance".
How many press secretaries were there before the position was just left empty?
How many chiefs of staff? No Senate confirmation required.
Like the opposition does?
no. It was unprecedented.
Link?
That's right John, this ruling saved his dictatorial ass.
Maybe you should beware of what you wished for. Biden can now try and steal the 2024 election and claim it was an official act. You know why? Because that is exactly what Trump did and the rw Supreme Court agreed with him.
The early reporting that I read is different. SCOYUS sent back to the lower court the task to determine what acts alleged in Donald Trump’s indictment on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election are official or unofficial.
I don't think they realize that this cover's Traitor Joe as well as every past POTUS. All they see is one name and they are going straight into hissy fit mode because it means they don't get their way.
Lets say Biden tries to steal the election . He can now say it was an official act and any court then must assume a presumption of immunity. By the time it worked its way through the legal system his second term would be over.
You make it sound like that hasn't already been in the works.
In all fairness, Biden doesn't have to say it was an official act, he can just stick with the diminished capacity defense from the Hur classified documents case
But then the Democrats and the left would be forced to admit they ran somebody who they knew wasn't fit for the position.
I would be concerned if I were Donald. Joes minions are probably already asking Hillary for the name of a couple friends she has used in the past.
It did indeed save #34's dictatorial extremely big fat ass
[✘]
removed for context
removed for context
You mean like having his future Secretary of State get 51 former (and some still getting paid for by the CIA) intelligence heads to sign a letter stating that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation before the 2020 Biden/Trump debate- so that Joe could blatantly lie to the US?
Like having the FBI during the 2020 and 2022 election bury any damaging information on social media on Biden or that contradicted information on Covid that the administration was pushing- like Covid originating from bats in a Chinese wet market? There was a shitload of Russia disinformation in 2020 and 2022; and it what all being produced by the FBI.
Of course Democrats and leftists all prescribe to the Harry Reid school of election interference "Well it worked didn't it!"
I must admit I never looked at Eisenhowers ass so I will have to take your word for it.
I will admit, when it was first bandied out I gave it a weak chuckle simply for the political satire element, but due to overuse, it has crossed over to the realm of having lost it's impact and value much like calling someone a racist has
Trump is #45.
Why did you address this to me? #34 -convicted of 34 felonies
Rather a racist is impacted or moved by being called what he or she is moot. The thing will and does speak for itself! Let's keep that in mind. Case in point: Donald is not moved and clearly shows no sign of being impacted by being called a racist or segregationist, however, stating that Blacks have detailed, 'Black jobs' and Hispanics have "Hispanic jobs" all the while alluding to the fields and subordination those who hear it or read it will call him what he is and act on it accordingly. His thoughts about it, notwithstanding. At this point, liberals should put their 'noses' to the tasks ahead and not worry or try to curry favor or be fearful of what the MAGA movement cares or not cares about it, because MAGAs expressly and repeatedly demonstrate they don't care and are not moved by liberal points of interests. Not in the least!
Details, details …..,
#34 is President Eisenhower. You are the only one saying it's Trump.
There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of people with 34 felonies.
Judging by your post, your have metaphorically chosed your band, paid for your desired drum beat,and have chosen the dance.
I will enjoy sitting it out and watching the show since I'm not required or obligated to dance.
What President before Trump was a felon?
Whatever is clever.
Did I say one was?
No racists here.
And what about Herbert Hoover?
And Grover Cleveland?
Link?
[ ✘ ] Let start with illegally removing Trump from the ballots:
But we know that can't happen. Right?
Well, to some who have no idea what SCOTUS ruled, it can happen and Biden would be allowed to steal it after he kills Trump!
We can only hope the country can survive all of this.
We will by voting Blue - President Biden.
We have survived the stupidity thus far, I have high hopes for us!
We are up by 6 points in the polls.
Yeah, but lots of ignorant Dems would vote for Biden if he was in a pine box come election day.
True. Some of them even hold college degrees.
No. This opinion doesn’t say that. It doesn’t say a president can do absolutely anything while he’s president and it’s fine. It says he is immune from prosecution for official acts. Even though I think he was wildly wrong on the law when he was trying to get Congress not to certify, everything he said or did was all official acts.
On the other hand, is campaigning for president an official act of the president? I personally don’t think so, but maybe it is. SCOTUS did not really determine that. For that reason, I still think there are circumstances - perhaps like January 6 - where a president could be indicted for inciting a riot. However, he can’t be prosecuted for ignoring it.
This level of immunity is broader than the qualified immunity police enjoy, but I still think it’s the right thing to do for the presidency.
Trump never incited a riot. Not a bit of evidence.
The hours long lies and further incitement at his 'rally' before the next to final words where it said to 'fight like hell or we won't have a country anymore' incitement hours after it said to be peaceful and patriotic...
Then these must disgust you.
The first sentence is your opinion. The second is objectively wrong.
I think we may be in for a period of more arguments-- this time about what, exactly, constitutes an "official act".
That will go back and forth in the lower courts-- and appealed.
And given the speed (or rather the lack thereof) of our court system-- these cases and appeals could go on for a long time . . .
" wildly wrong" ? thats it? yikes. this kind of reasoning is one of the reasons we are so fucked up right now.
Donald Trump tried to steal the 2020 election. That is a little more disconcerting than "wildly wrong".
That ignores that Donald Trump was impeached over his 'wildly wrong' activities concerning the 2020 election -- after Donald Trump left the White House and peacefully transferred Presidential authority to Joe Biden.
So, what prevents Congress from engaging in a legislative coup? What prevents Congress from overturning an election and removing a sitting President for purely political reasons?
Your comment is not relevant to anything I said.
You implied that Donald Trump used Presidential power and authority to try to steal the 2020 election. That was the justification for impeaching Donald Trump after he left office. That allegation only applies if the President had imperial powers and broad immunity for everything a President does.
The SCOTUS ruling clarifies that everything a President does is not immune from prosecution. SCOTUS has established a new limitation on Presidential powers and authority. A sitting President really can be prosecuted for abusing power to engage in unofficial activities without the need for impeachment.
The only thing the SCOTUS ruling does is impose a requirement to clarify what was done officially and what was done unofficially. And Donald Trump (or any President) can no longer claim immunity from prosecution for unofficial acts. SCOTUS took away any protection Trump hoped to obtain by winning reelection, he can still be prosecuted for unofficial political activities that broke the law. But, now, that immunity has also been stripped from Biden and exposed Biden to politically motivated prosecutions, too.
You know, this is where you take a perfectly reasonable opinion to extremes and just jump off a cliff. We both think he was wrong, but you want to turn my words into some kind of support for him from me. Then you attack me and my reasoning for the state of the country? What the hell?
Why don't you learn to chill a little and recognize when someone basically agrees with you? Why make enemies unnecessarily?
That's usually the case.
John, it appears to me you are focusing on the word immunity , as if that is some sort of carte blanche for the president, any president to get away with a anything.
I am sorry I don't read it that way.
For the most part Art II of the constitution outlines presidential powers and duties, there is of course other legislation that grants a president other powers and duties, such as the presidential war powers act.
In this case I am looking at sec 3 of Art II. a scant 10 words that outline a presidential duty/responsibility, "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"
That makes no mention of excluding state laws or election laws.
And the thing that would keep a president within those bounds of duties and responsibilities is the system of checks and balances , and the entity that has final judgement is the judicial branch guided by both the constitution and legislation that applies, NOT the fickle court of public opinion.
But if state and federal law are in conflict, federal law takes precedence.
Unless the state just usurps and uses Federal law; like Bragg's case against Trump in NY.
Of course Democrats would never abuse the legal system to achieve a political goal./S
Very true, that is where the supremacy clause of COTUS takes effect.
Like getting US government officials to pressure media to censor factual stories and protect Biden? They gonna do that again with lies about “deep fakes?
Well. . .don't like what you read about it: GET UP OFF. . .'IT' AND VOTE THIS NOVEMBER!!! Talk remains cheap. The Justices just proved that action "trumps" that.
And speaking of those conservative justices. . . more of them are on the way. . .if Donald defeats Biden in the fall. Liberals lose this election and your rude awakening will be lasting and hard to be endured.
Liberals and independents in 2025:
Boxed in and the lid shut for generations. That is MAGAs idea of payback and fairness.
I don’t know why this surprises - or even bothers - people. This is exactly what I expected and I agree with it. The president should be immune from prosecution for official acts taken while he is president.
That said, not everything a president might do is an official act. It needs to be in accordance with the Constitution, caselaw, and statute law.
DING, DING, DING we have a winner, when trump failed to turn over the documents from Mara Lago, he was not president. so i'm not sure how this will negatively effect that part of the case.
I think he’s fine to take the docs home. That’s a call Trump made as president. Were the documents mishandled? Clearly, but I think he’s immune from prosecution for that.
What he did afterward - both with the documents and in his dealings with the government - as a private citizen, is a different matter.
I imagine it will be based on how they treat Biden with his classified materials case. Remember, he was only a senator and VP when he had taken them.
But wasn't he president when he took them in the first place?
If both of those things are true, then it was OK for him to take them and is immune from prosecution for that (because he was president so it was an "official act").
However when he didn't return them he was no longer President, so refusing to return them was not an official act!
The precedent for mishandling classified information was set with Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Obama, and now Joe Biden.
Holding Trump to a different standard is from any of those four is not equal application of the law.
Now if they were to charge all of them- that would be equal application under the law. But since the 4 Democrats walked w/o being charged- then so should Trump.
if you do not know the facts, please don't post partisan BullShit.
Please read this to see how many people including top DEM & GOP officials have been treated by the FBI or DoJ. Most notable of you to exclude Mike Pence or General Betrayus. /S
Biden, Trump, and beyond: Punishment on classified documents varies - CSMonitor.com
WTF? Trump and his lawyers sometimes deliberately, and sometimes ignorantly lied about how many documents there were, where they were stored or moved to in secrecy, or where they are now. His behavior doesn't compare to Pence or Biden quantitatively or qualitatively because they cooperated. Trump stonewalled, attempted to destroy video evidence and lied over and over.
No, it most certainly would not be.
Ignorance of the law in not an excuse.
Ignorance of everything is no excuse yet . . . .
If this was a nonspecific, generic delineation of their INTERPRETATION of the constitution, why did they strike down specific aspects of Smith's case?
Trump claimed his efforts to subvert our election were "official" acts and now the SC has in essence agreed with him.
What does this have to do with "originalism" ?
Actually, I think the indictment calls them official acts. They kind of burned themselves with that.
There is a plan for that too. . . upcoming! States will be changing their laws to suit their purposes and a sweep of congress by MAGAs will effectively rewrite laws and statues. Drafts that are not prepared already for passage, can be done quickly enough in MAGA-controlled legislatures.
I don’t want to misrepresent this. Looking at this again, I fear I made it sound like Qualified Immunity. It is more than that. With Qualified Immunity - like the police enjoy - they have to be violating clearly established law to be sued. As SCOTUS pointed out, that requires a working knowledge of current caselaw. That is not what I meant above.
What I mean is the president is empowered to do certain things - a great many things. But he isn’t entitled to prima nocta, ya know? He can’t show up to your house as president, rape your wife, and get away with it because that is not an official act.
So I think maybe he could still be prosecuted for inciting a riot at a campaign speech. Maybe.
Any other actions he took - like trying to get the VP to block certification, he can’t be prosecuted for.
I also think it kind of lets him off the hook for at least some of the document case. Like I think it’s ok for him to improperly take the documents back to his house, because it’s a decision he made as president. However, as a private citizen, I don’t think he can ignore attempts by the government to retrieve them.
The more immediate impact is that none of this will be resolved before Election Day, and when he’s president, he can just order all federal charges dismissed.
Trump asked DOJ officials to just "say" that there was fraud in the election , and then he and the Republicans in Congress would take care of the rest. After today that eyewitness testimony cannot be introduced at a trial of Trump. Is that justice ?
LOL
WOW
Laugh all you want, but every president has made a decision that was technically wrong, or had unintended consequences, ignored protocol, and so on. We can't be prosecuting every president for every sloppy thing they do or choice that pushes the boundaries. I have heard people say that every president since Nixon should be prosecuted for something after they leave office. If we did that, it would destroy the institution.
Is a campaign speech an "official act"-- part of his duties as president?
I don't know.
Not very smart things to say
[✘]
Her whole mindset for this is strictly against ONE person. Not a good thing for a Justice.
Good point--- ideally it should apply to both of our presidents, not just one!
The idea that she, a Supreme Court Justice, is saying that a POTUS can call for the assassination of a political rival is a serious problem.
The additional fact she is only pointing that idiotic comment at ONE person shows her political bias. Which is another problem.
Not a very smart person
The democrats have proven they will support this action, if the president and his appointed handpicked cabinet declares him a terrorist first....
But if they declare him a terrorist, as president he can then commit terrorism as it would be an official act!!!!
It’s embarrassingly idiotic. Very bad look for a college graduate, let alone a justice to not know what the word presumption means.
I presume you know what it means?
Since when did 'assassination' of political opponents, either physically or through slanderous accusations, become a Constitutional responsibility of the Presidency? IMO the Constitution does not grant the President that official authority.
The SCOTUS ruling does seem to require using the Constitution as a measure for official responsibilities and requirements of the Presidency. That alone would be understandably worrisome to radical political elements seeking autocratic power.
And that is where Sotomayor makes an ass of herself.
The President is Commander-in-Cheif of our armed forces. That's definitely an official role...
So if a President send drones to, say, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc to assassinate a terrorist--- are you saying that that should not be allowed?
Are they going to assassinate US citizens w/o due process like Obama did?
How about when they take out the wrong target and kill innocents in an extra judicial drone strike. That happened under Bush Jr, Obama, Trump, and Biden. Not a single one was held accountable.
Also, if the legal process, administration, and PotUS cannot differentiate between a political opponent and a terrorist; then it is already too late for this country.
There are very specific requirements that must be met before an MQ-9 or like aircraft.
If they are not met, then the aircraft cannot engage.
The idea that the POTUS sent an MQ-9 or like aircraft to hit a specific facility/building/person is laughable. A POTUS will not get involved with the detailed pieces of an operation. Hell, they aren't even in the approval process of an operation.
That misses Libya, Chad, Niger, the South China Sea, and several NATO countries bordering Ukraine and Russia. Just because Congress has abrogated its Constitutional responsibilities to serve as a check and balance on Presidential war making doesn't give that President unlimited and unrestricted authority to make war.
What does wasting the lives of US troops fighting pointless brush wars in little shithole countries have to do with claiming that a coup is an official function of the Presidency?
You do understand that part of the gripe about Donald Trump is that he DID NOT deploy US troops to the Capitol building on Jan. 6th. Donald Trump is being accused of REFUSING to declare martial law and assuming dictatorial control over Washington D.C. and over the Congress of the United States. So, how does this SCOTUS ruling change what happened? Does this SCOTUS ruling force a President to become a dictator when Congress wants one?
Just because dirty, crooked, lying politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer want to cover their asses for failing to do their jobs doesn't magically transform hair-on-fire gaslighting into the truth. Liberals have relied upon expanding the imperial authority of the Presidency because they can't legislate what they want. Liberals cannot impose their politics onto the country without dictatorial Presidential power and immunity. Liberals could NOT legislate Federal protections for unrestricted access to abortion in 51 years of trying. Liberals could NOT legislate DACA; that had to be created by Executive Order. Liberals could NOT legislate strict environmental, safety, and health regulations; liberals had to rely upon the autocratic powers of executive agencies. So, in your opinion, why would liberals be so very upset if the SCOTUS ruling allowed a President even more autocratic power?
Democrats do NOT want people to think about any of this stuff. Democrats want people to believe whatever Democrats tell them. Be a rebel, stage a revolution, and think for yourself. That's what liberalism is supposed to be about, isn't it?
The 6 bought and paid for certainly did give President Biden that authority.
That's what we should call these traitors from now on
The Six Bought and Paid For (+ginny and whatever alito's wife's name is)
lol …. Ironic
opinions vary
lol
+truth not irony
Go for it. Hopefully it catches on better that #34 has
Too many syllables, most that would be tempted to use it would sound like Biden at the debate.
And expect a participation trophy.
What? A person in our government said something that you judge to not being very smart?
I am shocked-- shocked I tell you!
Nothing like that has ever happened before-- let's hope it never happens again!
Harumph!
Even before the dust settles as to exactly what this decision means there seem to be many whose hair is exhibiting spontaneous combustion
I wast thinking it was going that far...yet.
More in line with an apoplectic episode leading to a severe pillow biting screaming to the heavens session....
As long as they are enjoying themselves being miserable.
Why the surprise?
Don't you realize that global warming is a real thing?
What is needed is legislation requiring working fire extinguishers* be installed at regular intervals in the hollowed walls of Congress!
*(Where is Jamaal Bowman when you need him?)
Orange man bad really has broken the lefts’ collective brain.
It's just wild to see how crazy people are getting over a ruling that mostly punted on specifics and provided an outline that is generally consistent with everyone's previous understanding of Presidential immunity.
First thing I've heard from a conservative today that makes any sense.
Conservatives make sense all the time. It's just hard to hear it over those afflicted with TDS shrieking all the time.
[deleted][✘]
[✘]
The supreme court has spoken. And once again their decision is not as black and white as some people would like. Of course it can't be easy trying to decide on an issue and not on the specific person it was brought about for.
It is anathema to our founding principles that this ruling occurs the same week we celebrate our Independence, forgetting the centuries old ideal that no one is above the law.
In our present day partisan myopia, it is convenient for some to forget the principles upon which we were founded, and makes those same apologists less inclined to think of the long term ramifications.
As this court is want to overturn decades old decisions, the only hope lies in knowing future courts will do the same…as long as the process continues to exist.
I find it ironic that we celebrate our independence having to pay taxes on the fireworks we celebrate fighting against taxation.....
Life must be good, Mark, if that is your only takeaway. Enjoy your holiday.
Life is good except for the background noise from all the angry loudmouths out there these days.
That can get marginally vexing at times.
Yes, such angry loudmouths
...............................without what ?
The colonists were not fighting against taxation. The English people had been taxed for a thousand years.
representation
Naw not the only one.
Another take away I have is democrats and the party have been having a really horrible smelly bad couple of days they have to work through.
Of course I find it hard to take any empathy or sympathy with those that have been continually stirring the anti trump shit pot just to keep it somewhat current.
Now they are stuck licking the spoon of their own self for filling proficy.
Though it does seem they used an electric mixer and forgot to turn it off before licking the beaters.......
Touchy touchy John, everyone knows the answer to that, and it's without representation, which was but a single issue among many, if you have forgot them I recommend reading the list of grievances contained in the DoI, That is if you can stand the language of that most definitely racist era and time.
“ The colonists were not fighting against taxation.”
Nope, they were fighting to keep their slaves.
Just the democrats, the republicans didn't exist yet.
Really? People here claim Thomas Jefferson was a member of a party founded in 1854.
Wow. That comment is poetic.
Which side do you think has the most angry loudmouths-- the Liberals or the Conservatives?
(Asking for a friend
)
I am going to venture to suggest (though it will take adept investigators to determine for sure) that there is a conspiracy to neutralize liberal/progressive advances in this country, and in furtherance of the same to suppress and or shut the door in the faces of liberals complaints being heard and advanced. Therefore, we will have to get up and act for ourselves.
I am going to venture to suggest (though it will take adept investigators to determine for sure) that there is a conspiracy to neutralize liberal/progressive advances in this country,
I totally agree.
And by the same token, there is a conspiracy to neutralize conservative/reactionary advances in this country,
though it will take adept investigators to determine for sure
Maybe yes, maybe no . . .
You probably haven't had a chance to read the ruling yet and of course our media tends to overdramatize most things.
Oh and by the way now that we have these 'clarifying' perspectives from the high court. . .look for the by hook and CROOK upcoming in this election; don't forget the old "October surprise" (Crook) planned too!
I think that many politicians as well as some of the more persistently pusilanamous pundits are precariously planning for a set of surprisingly unforeseen circumstances-- yes, right now-- as we speak!
And I think you are correct-- they are using every hook and crook at their disposal-- and more!
Look! This is either a positive 'thing' for this country to set back or aside those 50 year advancements made toward freeing 'shackled' mentally and in some groups physically their proper place in society or it is a negative 'thing.' The 'Game' itself for me is not a straddle the fence and hope for the best. . . because I have skin it this (to win and/or lose). Apparently, such is the case for many who endeavor to take time out of everyday and in some cases 'all' day to chat/discuss issues. So, I ask you to please respect that when you comment to me, anyway.
That said, on a different article posted today on NT, I have provided the 'SCOTUS immunity opinion' and even opened with a comment from its beginning pages (3-5) in order to be openly discuss (with all whom care to do so) the document. I'm helping with its exposure to our assemblage for reasons of clarity and hopefully understanding in regards to it. (I even plan to 'go through' the document by 'pages' as needed to assist that interests).
Therefore, from my perspective, I am not merely taking a partisan stance on this election with others in here. There will be dirty politics, dirty deeds, and more done in this election and people need to 'look up' for them now before it occurs and catches them unprepared. That is what I wrote and what I mean by doing so.
I am surprised more on the left aren't happy about this ruling. They can get their panties in a bunch like Sotomayor and maybe get a little more life out of their "end of democracy" narrative that was on life support.
They can get their panties in a bunch like Sotomayor.
First setting hair on fire -- and then vast masses actually going commando.
Oh, the horror-- will it never end?
Anyone else notice that as long as Biden could read off a teleprompter and not "wing it" how much better he sounded from last Thursday? Yeah, me too. And again, no questions. just turn and run. I can't believe this isn't obvious to all of you Bidenistas
Truly sad
It’s amazing the excuses they are willing to make for Joe Dementia, and watching the news you see these “fact checkers are up to 35 to 40 lies for Trump and Joe dementia is still at 9. By the weekend I’m thinking they will hit 50 and joes sycophants won’t even question it.
They see they are stuck with Joe and now have to put more lipstick on the pig
MAGA has its own 'pig' to deal with come November.
Trump can tell 35 or 40 lies before he brushes his teeth in the morning.
The pig is still better than the vegetable the Democrats are trying to force down our throats again.
I'm still not totally convinced we aren't watching one of those things in Disney's hall of presidents and the real joe is on ice somewhere like walt supposedly is. (Snark)
Lordy, help us when Donald, the presumptive immunity president, listens to his "elites" whom tell him to let a pandemic ravish the country, because, well, FREEDOM! When the public starts dropping like flies trapped in a poisonous fog pervasively. . .we can all take whatever comfort we can that Donald will not be prosecuted for having left us completely unarmed/unprepared.
And now Donald is inching closer and closer to being able to literally shoot somebody on any street in this country, and truly NOT be prosecuted for it if he can show the slimmest of cause of an official 'duty' for have done so.
It's interesting. . . those who called SCOTUS unelected officials and 'elites' have turned to those unelected officials to do their powerplays. How long will we sit around and listen to the bull? Until it really hurts and kills half of us all?