172d
@AverageJoe1 saidIf they were learned, they would not have reaches this conclusion.
3 more things: You say that 9 learned judges are misinterpreting the Constitution after they studied it for a month. A bit of a stretch, Shav. You right, they wrong?
Change the law? 'Hope' that the law (the constitution) should be changed?. I don't hope that at all. The thing works for 250 years? You liberal meenies want to change it ....why? Because you don't l ...[text shortened]... Newsome-in-the-mirror, are narcissists. So what in the Hell are we going to do to fix that!!?!??!?!
And 3 of them didn’t.
What you have here is political appointments making decisions which are very short-sighted.
And I know you think Biden, blah blah blah, but believe me, trump is a problem. And if he’s above the law, you are feeding the beast.
We use Biden as an example, so it’s easier for you to relate.
What is happening, is that your democracy is being flushed down the toilet, and you are on the sidelines applauding.
It has happened before. Learn.
@shavixmir saidYou're supposed to let the thread devolve to hitler shag pseudy, godwins law, don't get too excited and prematurely ejaculate the hitler juice too early. LOL
If they were learned, they would not have reaches this conclusion.
And 3 of them didn’t.
What you have here is political appointments making decisions which are very short-sighted.
And I know you think Biden, blah blah blah, but believe me, trump is a problem. And if he’s above the law, you are feeding the beast.
We use Biden as an example, so it’s easier for you t ...[text shortened]... flushed down the toilet, and you are on the sidelines applauding.
It has happened before. Learn.
172d
@shavixmir saidBiden, since he is allowed to
It’s a very slippery slope.
Someone needs to shoot thise justices and replace them with sane people.
172d
@shavixmir saidI love this, is bespeaks tomes of liberal thought. They are lock step and DO Not Understand Debate. This poster thinks that it should be AUTOMATIC for several judges, looking at the same law, to arrive at the same conclusion.
If they were learned, they would not have reaches this conclusion.
And 3 of them didn’t.
He is saying they should be in lock step. Liberal dogma at its finest.
Shav does not understand, he just does not. I think none of them do. AOC is the poster child.
172d
Maybe Shav will shore up his opinion and tell us that there is no way that 9 judges could have diff interpretations of the law. Shav prob thinks that they all should have said that abortion is a Constitutional issue. How could they POSSIBLY have disagreement, diff interpretations?
Hell, maybe Shav thinks that all 330M of us, if we were of liberal bent, should think that the illegal alien invaders should be allowed to enter our country.
172d
@AverageJoe1 saidWhat I am saying, Joe, if you would take off the moron-blinkers for 1 minute, is that your supreme court is extremely politically biased. And that no sane/ objective court, anywhere in the world, would come to the conclusion your supreme court just did.
I love this, is bespeaks tomes of liberal thought. They are lock step and DO Not Understand Debate. This poster thinks that it should be AUTOMATIC for several judges, looking at the same law, to arrive at the same conclusion.
He is saying they should be in lock step. Liberal dogma at its finest.
Shav does not understand, he just does not. I think none of them do. AOC is the poster child.
Yes. There are a few: Putin, the dude from North Korea, South American dictatorships, Netenyahoo (so long as he stays in power).
They are not what you would call marvelous examples of statehood.
172d
@moonbus saidThere is plenty to discuss with you fools without these silly comments. And you best be careful with the words you speak on the Forum
In a landmark victory for Joe Biden, the SCOTUS has determined that an ex-president enjoys perpetual immunity for crimes committed while in office, so long as said crimes were pursuant to "official" business of his office. Biden's path to victory on Nov. 4, 2024 is now clear: send the FBI to Mar-A-Lago again on any pretext (planting another purloined top secret document, for ...[text shortened]... resident for quite a while yet, until he keels over -- then it'll be Harris. Hurrah for the SCOTUS !
172d
@kmax87 saidGolly, what basis indeed. Maybe the basis of the bartender, AOC? Try to cancel our Constitutional Republic?
Exactly! So if Biden anticipates a possible future Trump Presidency to be anti democratic and bad for America, can he invoke the Bush Doctrine and pre-emptively get Seal Team 7 to drag Trump off into the wilderness and dispose of his sorry ass there?
On what basis then would the Supreme Court deny Biden immunity?
172d
@shavixmir saidYes, if I were on the court, I would take a conservative look at the Constitution and judge accordingly. Biased to the extent of intent of the document. But I would be sure to be a constitutional republic. IF AOC were on the court, do you think that she would apply the constitution to cases? No, she would be of the bias of which you speak. Be honest.
What I am saying, Joe, if you would take off the moron-blinkers for 1 minute, is that your supreme court is extremely politically biased. And that no sane/ objective court, anywhere in the world, would come to the conclusion your supreme court just did.
Yes. There are a few: Putin, the dude from North Korea, South American dictatorships, Netenyahoo (so long as he stays in power).
They are not what you would call marvelous examples of statehood.
So, given these facts, which of us would judge properly? Constitutionally. Your answer may be that the constitution is wrong. Start a thread, and tell us how?
171d
@AverageJoe1
Then you better be worried about KING Biden if he hurts people when he was constrained by law, you best worry about what he can do now that King Biden is LITERALLY above the law, the only person to have such power in the history of the US,
171d
@kmax87
That is EXACTLY what those ultrarightwingnuts in SCOTUS has done, now we have KING Biden and if Trump is by some horrible chance reelected, he doesn't even have to work to be dictator for a day as he said, SCOTUS has already given that to him if he wins.
I wonder if those SCOTUS assswipes took into account at least for the next four months BIDEN is king now, LITERALLY?
171d
@sonhouse saidTenuous times, the way we have gotten away from the Constitution. So we are getting back straight, and meanwhile, here on the Forum, have to fend off the stupid silly takeaways of the liberals who think Biden, and then Trump, can run amuck. It is tiresome when you say Trump can 'take out' his naysayers. Yawn discussions.
@AverageJoe1
Then you better be worried about KING Biden if he hurts people when he was constrained by law, you best worry about what he can do now that King Biden is LITERALLY above the law, the only person to have such power in the history of the US,
171d
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidSimple, he claims he's doing an official act, under his oath to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic".
No sense being glib, just tell us how the ruling would allow the president to do that???
Trump could be taken out and for the very same reason.