LOL. I saw on twitter that the justices need to be asked this question "could a female president get an abortion in idaho?
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [DieselPete]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [sosayusall]
[ In reply to ]
sosayusall wrote:
LOL. I saw on twitter that the justices need to be asked this question "could a female president get an abortion in idaho?It depends but yes, if she had got pregnant as an official act of the office.
Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [DavHamm]
[ In reply to ]
DavHamm wrote:
If they had let the lower court ruling stand, we would have had it in right.
I think MAGA needs to hear it from the bosses directly.....work with me here.
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [DieselPete]
[ In reply to ]
Someone needs to tell Alito instead of saying:
He could just save time and say:
Quote:
That may involve great expense, and it may take up a lot of time. And during the trial, the former president may be unable to engage in other activities that the former president would want to engage in and then the outcome is dependent on the jury, the instructions to the jury, and how the jury returns a verdict and then it has to be taken up on appeal.He could just save time and say:
Quote:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [chaparral]
[ In reply to ]
chaparral wrote:
BLeP wrote:
DieselPete wrote:
j p o wrote:
DavHamm wrote:
DieselPete wrote:
Trump's lawyer, not surprisingly, is getting destroyed. When you are stuck with saying that "staging a coup, might be an official act, depending..." you aren't in very good shape.
Trump has already achieved one goal (delay, delay, delay) but this case is a national embarrassment on some levels. We are answering questions that never should even have to be asked.
No they have won, their objective, they have no expectations of winning this case. But they won by delaying, which is there legal right, and by taking this case, the Supreme Court has made themselves look like complete idiots having to listen and ask questions about this. They should never have taken this case up.
First they declined to expedite it. Then they took it. That was not an accident.
And am I correct that after they decided to take it (which everyone knew they would) they placed it on the last day of the session? As in, they gave Trump a maximum delay.
Yes. Now watch them take 6 months to rule on it.
This is a big fucking joke.
And their ruling may be to remand back to the DC circuit to decide if leading coup is an official act, delaying it even further.
I just read that Robert’s sounds like he’s inclined to send it back.
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [DieselPete]
[ In reply to ]
DieselPete wrote:
And of course Alito is suggesting we should be worried that a loser of an election could be tossed in prison if they don't have immunity (we'll become a banana republic, essentially), which is also Alito expressing no faith in the American judicial system. And Kagan is now pushing back on that by supporting that we have a robust legal system with many steps, appeals, fail safes (admitting that we get it wrong, now and then), and if they all fail haven't we destroyed our democracy.
Alito just can't help himself. He has to argue the stupid side through a "question."
You mean we can't just throw people into a prison boat off Gitmo without due process? (ignoring that fact that we don't even have prison boats off Gitmo). Seems obvious, but somebody needs to tell Ginny Thomas.
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [BLeP]
[ In reply to ]
“The Supreme Court of the United States is literally deciding today whether Donald Trump can legally have them all executed on January 20, 2025, and the upshot I get from major media updates from inside the courtroom is that they are taking a serious look at it
America is over”
- Seth.Abramson on threads.
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
America is over”
- Seth.Abramson on threads.
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [chaparral]
[ In reply to ]
chaparral wrote:
Someone needs to tell Alito instead of saying: Quote:
That may involve great expense, and it may take up a lot of time. And during the trial, the former president may be unable to engage in other activities that the former president would want to engage in and then the outcome is dependent on the jury, the instructions to the jury, and how the jury returns a verdict and then it has to be taken up on appeal.He could just save time and say:
Quote:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.You need to find a new clever quote.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [slowguy]
[ In reply to ]
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
Someone needs to tell Alito instead of saying: Quote:
That may involve great expense, and it may take up a lot of time. And during the trial, the former president may be unable to engage in other activities that the former president would want to engage in and then the outcome is dependent on the jury, the instructions to the jury, and how the jury returns a verdict and then it has to be taken up on appeal.He could just save time and say:
Quote:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.You need to find a new clever quote.
True that
They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [slowguy]
[ In reply to ]
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
Someone needs to tell Alito instead of saying: Quote:
That may involve great expense, and it may take up a lot of time. And during the trial, the former president may be unable to engage in other activities that the former president would want to engage in and then the outcome is dependent on the jury, the instructions to the jury, and how the jury returns a verdict and then it has to be taken up on appeal.He could just save time and say:
Quote:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.You need to find a new clever quote.
It is not my fault it keeps being relevant.
Do you have a better description of conservatism.
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [chaparral]
[ In reply to ]
Where’s Stanley Tucci?
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [DieselPete]
[ In reply to ]
DieselPete wrote:
j p o wrote:
DavHamm wrote:
DieselPete wrote:
Trump's lawyer, not surprisingly, is getting destroyed. When you are stuck with saying that "staging a coup, might be an official act, depending..." you aren't in very good shape.
Trump has already achieved one goal (delay, delay, delay) but this case is a national embarrassment on some levels. We are answering questions that never should even have to be asked.
No they have won, their objective, they have no expectations of winning this case. But they won by delaying, which is there legal right, and by taking this case, the Supreme Court has made themselves look like complete idiots having to listen and ask questions about this. They should never have taken this case up.
First they declined to expedite it. Then they took it. That was not an accident.
And am I correct that after they decided to take it (which everyone knew they would) they placed it on the last day of the session? As in, they gave Trump a maximum delay.
It looks like the term was scheduled to end yesterday. So, they added a day for this case.
The Court certainly is introducing a lot of delay. But, normally if someone files a cert petition in February the case would not get argued until the next term, which starts in about October. In that sense, this is not maximum delay. It’s just enough delay to save Trump from a trial in this case before the election.
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [chaparral]
[ In reply to ]
chaparral wrote:
Do you have a better description of conservatism.I think conservatives usually are appreciative of the knowledge and wisdom passed down from previous generations that, while incomplete, has brought us to this point.
Progressives usually are dismissive of the knowledge and wisdom passed down from previous generations because it was borne out of ignorance and used to oppress outgroups.
How'd I do?
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [TMI]
[ In reply to ]
TMI wrote:
chaparral wrote:
Do you have a better description of conservatism.I think conservatives usually are appreciative of the knowledge and wisdom passed down from previous generations that, while incomplete, has brought us to this point.
Progressives usually are dismissive of the knowledge and wisdom passed down from previous generations because it was borne out of ignorance and used to oppress outgroups.
How'd I do?
Complete bullshit......as usual.
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [Nutella]
[ In reply to ]
They had this little bit in the NYTimes when talking about opinions on college protests.
Quote:
Progressives, Kling wrote, see the world as a struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed, and they try to help the oppressed. Conservatives see the world as a struggle between civilization and barbarism — between order and chaos — and they try to protect civilization.
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [chaparral]
[ In reply to ]
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
Someone needs to tell Alito instead of saying: Quote:
That may involve great expense, and it may take up a lot of time. And during the trial, the former president may be unable to engage in other activities that the former president would want to engage in and then the outcome is dependent on the jury, the instructions to the jury, and how the jury returns a verdict and then it has to be taken up on appeal.He could just save time and say:
Quote:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.You need to find a new clever quote.
It is not my fault it keeps being relevant.
Do you have a better description of conservatism.
Unfortunately most of these labels are meaningless these days.
Historically Conservatives have been for family values, institutions, fiscal responsibility, property rights, the military, etc. Today many people that claim to be a conservative embrace a thrice divorced serial philander. They love a guy who attacks the FBI and DOJ, ran up more debt than any president in history, loves imminent domain, mocked the military who gave their lives for their country. The folks that used to be for free trade now embrace a guy who loses trade wars and loves tariffs.
This is not healthy for American democracy.
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [torrey]
[ In reply to ]
torrey wrote:
They had this little bit in the NYTimes when talking about opinions on college protests. Quote:
Progressives, Kling wrote, see the world as a struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed, and they try to help the oppressed. Conservatives see the world as a struggle between civilization and barbarism — between order and chaos — and they try to protect civilization.I prefer order over chaos so I must be a Conservative.
Funny that so many people that hide behind that label today support a president who is chaos personified. He wants to tear down the institutions that have made American civilization great.
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [torrey]
[ In reply to ]
torrey wrote:
They had this little bit in the NYTimes when talking about opinions on college protests. Quote:
Progressives, Kling wrote, see the world as a struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed, and they try to help the oppressed. Conservatives see the world as a struggle between civilization and barbarism — between order and chaos — and they try to protect civilization.I see Nutella is in full on loser talk mode bitterly complaining again
He’s a loser but he’s a smart loser. He knows
Rising inflation
Falling GDP
Rising gas prices
No exec orders on the border disaster
Biden again showing incredible weakness by taking neither/both sides of the Israel Gaza dispute in a weak attempt to appease both parts of his base
The multiple law fare attempts that are not only failing (by posters own admission in this thread) but worse are backfiring with independents far more worried about the list above
Spells disaster 6 months out. He knows he can’t keep making excuses for the current admin because nobodies buying the bullshit he’s selling anymore
So he talks about TFG and “chaos”. Because, you know the current situation isn’t “chaos” at all. Pay no attention to that.
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [Tylertri]
[ In reply to ]
And trump can fix the above problems? How, he couldn’t even get Mexico to build a wall. Seriously, who are you supporting for prez?
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [TMI]
[ In reply to ]
TMI wrote:
chaparral wrote:
Do you have a better description of conservatism.I think conservatives usually are appreciative of the knowledge and wisdom passed down from previous generations that, while incomplete, has brought us to this point.
Progressives usually are dismissive of the knowledge and wisdom passed down from previous generations because it was borne out of ignorance and used to oppress outgroups.
How'd I do?
You did objectively horrible.
First, can you really look at trump and go “that is someone that appreciates knowledge and wisdom.”
Second, conservatives do not appreciate knowledge and wisdom. The current speaker of the house has positive views of creationism.
https://www.huffpost.com/...dc81e4b0d69ae7068a0b
Does that sound like some that appreciates knowledge and wisdom.
Third, if conservatives appreciate wisdom and knowledge from people in the past, it is clearly a cherry picked group of people and then actively ignored others.
So yes, your definition is not accurate.
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [tyrod1]
[ In reply to ]
tyrod1 wrote:
And trump can fix the above problems? How, he couldn’t even get Mexico to build a wall. Seriously, who are you supporting for prez?Trump can't fix anything, he is team chaos.
Trump, and the GOP, want chaos at the border.....which is why they killed the strongest border security bill in a generation.
Biden inherited chaos from Trump. He has brought inflation down from 9.06% to 3.15%. He turned Trump's 14% unemployment to todays 3.8%. Lowered gas prices by $1.70 per gallon. Turned Trump's flaccid economy into the best economy in the world. *
Today's GOP hates it when America does well.
*The reality is the President has limited direct control over the economy.
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [BLeP]
[ In reply to ]
BLeP wrote:
“The Supreme Court of the United States is literally deciding today whether Donald Trump can legally have them all executed on January 20, 2025, and the upshot I get from major media updates from inside the courtroom is that they are taking a serious look at it America is over”
- Seth.Abramson on threads.
In this sense the Trump team has been spectacular - by suggesting comedic hypotheticals over the actual details of the case against Trump - - - they've given the conservative Trump loving Justices an out . . . they don't have to listen to the Trump case specifics, they can entertain hypotheticals, and can suggest many long extended procedures on what constitutes personal vs official acts, and where immunity applies and does not.
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [LorenzoP]
[ In reply to ]
LorenzoP wrote:
BLeP wrote:
“The Supreme Court of the United States is literally deciding today whether Donald Trump can legally have them all executed on January 20, 2025, and the upshot I get from major media updates from inside the courtroom is that they are taking a serious look at it America is over”
- Seth.Abramson on threads.
In this sense the Trump team has been spectacular - by suggesting comedic hypotheticals over the actual details of the case against Trump - - - they've given the conservative Trump loving Justices an out . . . they don't have to listen to the Trump case specifics, they can entertain hypotheticals, and can suggest many long extended procedures on what constitutes personal vs official acts, and where immunity applies and does not.
It’s an embarrassment.
I honestly wish JSA were here to opine. But he probably too embarrassed to chime in.
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [chaparral]
[ In reply to ]
If your and Nutella's critiques hadn't equated Trump with conservatism, I might have taken them more seriously.
TMI wrote:
If your and Nutella's critiques hadn't equated Trump with conservatism, I might have taken them more seriously.I did not equate Trump with Conservatism, I pointed out fact that Trump represents nothing that is traditionally Conservative.......but the majority of Americans who claim to be Conservative blindly support him.