Well, AOC s going to be lonely, I do believe a lot of "The Squad" members have or will lose during their primaries.

Hopefully she can do an event for Cori "Dipshit" Bush, like she did for "Fire Alarm" Bowman.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
That the President has immunity for official acts in Office just seems obvious to me. But of course, 6-3.

BHO and Biden should be happy about this ruling (because it protects them too), but I'm sure they'll feign anger and disappointment... AND want to pack the court.

They may be shielded from prosecution for what they did while in office but FBO can be prosecuted for the things he has since he left, and he gets no immunity for that. Similarly for FJB.

Joey D
7/1/24

Wait... who is the hopping mad bartender intending to impeach upon her return? Biden? Former President Trump? The entire US Supreme Court?

Does she not grasp the basic premise of separate but equal branches?

regarding the NYC trial where Trump is set to be sentenced on 11 July 2024,

"Attorneys for Donald Trump indicated in a letter to the presiding judge in the former president's hush money case that they want him to postpone sentencing and set aside the trial verdict following the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling Monday.

The lawyers said they want to brief New York state Judge Juan Merchan on the relevance of the high court’s immunity decision and an argument that the decision confirmed that the Manhattan district attorney should not have been able to offer evidence at trial concerning Trump’s official acts as president.

Trump’s attorneys are seeking to throw out his conviction 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and postpone next week’s sentencing, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter. "


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...trump-cases-n2641225

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Wait... who is the hopping mad bartender intending to impeach upon her return? Biden? Former President Trump? The entire US Supreme Court?

The SCOTUS' six are shaking in their boots.

Good on Roberts schooling these lunatics.


Chief Justice John Roberts chided the liberal justices for 'fear mongering' claiming immunity ruling allows presidents to poison staff, have Navy SEALs kill political rivals

By Brianna Herlihy | Fox News
Published July 1, 2024 5:45pm EDT

In their dissents from the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity, the court's liberal justices suggested that the majority opinion allows for a slew of alarming scenarios — including a president ordering a Navy SEAL team to "assassinate" his political rival or even poisoning one of his own cabinet members.

The high court on Monday ruled 6-3 that a president has substantial immunity for official acts that occurred during his time in office. It's a decision that has significant implications for former President Trump, whose prosecution on charges related to the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol breach and alleged 2020 election interference spurred the Supreme Court to hear the case.

But although the majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly stated that the president "is not above the law" and immunity is only a factor when it involves an "official act" — the justices sent the case back to lower courts to determine if the acts at the center of Trump's case were "official" — the ruling raised a series of frightening possibilities, according to the trio of dissenting justices.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan wrote in the primary dissent that the court's majority opinion "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."

"The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," Sotomayor wrote. "Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

She continued: "Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today."

Sotomayor added that the majority decision has "shifted irrevocably" the relationship between the president and the American people, being that "in every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."

Yet another startling scenario is included in a footnote from a separate dissent authored by Jackson.

Noting that the president's removal of a cabinet member would constitute an official act, Jackson says that "while the President may have the authority to decide to remove the Attorney General, for example, the question here is whether the President has the option to remove the Attorney General by, say, poisoning him to death."

She adds: "Put another way, the issue here is not whether the President has exclusive removal power, but whether a generally applicable criminal law prohibiting murder can restrict how the President exercises that authority."

Sotomayor's conclusion summed up the prevailing tenor of her and Jackson's writings: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

Both dissents were taken to task in the court's majority opinion.

"As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today…," Roberts wrote.

He added: "Coming up short on reasoning, the dissents repeatedly level variations of the accusation that the Court has rendered the President ‘above the law.’"

Adding that the dissents came "up short on reasoning," Roberts wrote that the "positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President ‘feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.'"

Sotomayor's dissent swiftly reverberated throughout social media. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who lost to Trump in the 2016 election, posted on X that she agrees with Sotomayor's stand against the "MAGA wing" of the high court.

"It will be up to the American people this November to hold Donald Trump accountable," Clinton wrote.

The stakes in this years election are highlighted by the current presidents' DOJ arguing before the SC, to remove the immunity implied during the nation's history. This exposes the current president to future prosecution, apparently worth it if it helps knock out the opposition. Maybe they knowingly can take the risk, since only one party is subject to lawfare.

FJB's speech indicates he's quite agitated about maintaining this immunity, and was looking forward to possible prosecutions if the SC would have insanely removed the immunity presidents have always had and must have.

In the dims lawfare scheme, you have to wonder if they anticipated the immunity angle. Maybe they hoped the SC wouldn't take it up, but did they really think the court would rule against immunity? Possibly they consider themselves winners even if DT wins every case, because they still win the war of attrition by forcing DT to defend, waste resources, and be kept from campaigning. FJB's speech regarding his disgust at the SC ruling he maintains his immunity, must be considered a tantrum. Is this the first presidential tantrum speech in history? If the tantrum is sincere, they really do prefer loss of the immunity that even protects dim presidents, if it helped take out DT.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan...

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

Sotomayor wrote. "Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

Wise latina? כּלבֿטע

Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg says he won't oppose a delay in Trump's sentencing

https://justthenews.com/govern..._campaign=newsletter

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office said Tuesday that he would not be opposed to delaying former President Donald Trump's sentencing in his hush money trial to allow time for considering the impact of U.S Supreme Court's immunity ruling.

“Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass responded in a letter filed Tuesday, according to The Hill.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:...Wise latina? כּלבֿטע

כן! כּלבֿטע

You have to wonder: are these people really so stupid?

Or do they think that we're so stupid they can put this shit over on us?

quote:

If the tantrum is sincere, they really do prefer loss of the immunity that even protects dim presidents, if it helped take out DT.

One might consider that the left, in control of the media, the DOJ, LE (FBI), has effective immunity. They don't need the relief the SC ruling might provide to republicans.

The insane left loses nothing if the SC would have ruled otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
One might consider that the left, in control of the media, the DOJ, LE (FBI), has effective immunity. They don't need the relief the SC ruling might provide to republicans.

The insane left loses nothing if the SC would have ruled otherwise.

Well said.


.

Trump's sentencing has been moved to September 18. The second debate is September 10.

https://x.com/gatewaypundit/st.../1808225249084805412

Gangster.

https://x.com/vigilantfox/stat...179617397719127?s=42



Congressman Wesley Hunt Reveals Jaw-Dropping Trump Story

This is amazing.

In a tense meeting with Taliban leaders, Trump declared, “I want to leave Afghanistan, but it’s going to be a conditions-based withdrawal,” before issuing a stark warning.

“If you harm a hair on a single American, I’m going to kill you,” Trump said. The translator conveyed this exact message.

Trump then “reached in his pocket, pulled out a satellite photo of the leader of the Taliban’s home, handed it to him, got up and walked out the room.”

^^^^^ doesn't get any better than that

quote:

...Sotomayor wrote. "Order the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.

I guess someone should remind Sotomayor and other idiot Dems that, were it not for "presidential immunity," Barrack Obama could have been prosecuted for murder for illegally ordering the drone deaths of Anwar Al-Awlaki, a U.S. CITIZEN, and 2 other US citizens in the Middle East (one of them a 16 yr old child). None of them were convicted of a crime, nor were they afforded the "due process" which is guaranteed to all citizens. Two of the most liberal organizations there are, the ACLU and Amnesty International, thought what Obama did was illegal.

Since there is no statute of limitations on murder, I guess Merrick Garland should bring charges against Obama for murder now, since he doesn't agree with the Supreme Court decision either.

Don is The Don...

He works in Waste Management.