SCOTUS thread

Moiraine said:
No he couldn’t. Well, he could, but he would go to jail. And I kinda doubt the ordere would be obeyed. But let’s say that happens.

The supreme court left it up to the courts to decide which actions are official. And those cases can wind up back in the supreme court. So the supreme court can make the decisions based on whether they like the president or not, although of course they would obfuscate it with lingo making it sound like it’s not what they’re doing. 
Click to expand...
I think I was more obfuscatious than I meant to be but I was joking, along with commando.

 
Moiraine said:
No he couldn’t. Well, he could, but he would go to jail. And I kinda doubt the ordere would be obeyed. But let’s say that happens.

The supreme court left it up to the courts to decide which actions are official. And those cases can wind up back in the supreme court. So the supreme court can make the decisions based on whether they like the president or not, although of course they would obfuscate it with lingo making it sound like it’s not what they’re doing. 

It’s actually crazy how many people are being fooled into thinking this is okay. 
Click to expand...
Puh-lease. 
 

You make it sound like the Supreme Court would just put their finger on the scale for their favored candidate.

We all know that’s never happened and will never happen. They’re what’s called an “apolitical body.”

 
Danny Bateman said:
Why are we presuming Republicans are operating in good faith? They were already inplementing this system prior to this ruling.

Republican EOs in red states have been passing laws eroding their citizens freedoms by taking decision making away from actual experts (medical professionals) and passing it to activists (politicians and religious zealots) wherever they can after Roe fell. Explicitly because Sky Daddy told them to. f#&% your freedoms.

The judiciary should be understood to be doing whatever is in the best interests of those pulling the strings in the GOP. Any argument otherwise is just a red herring trying to appear reasonable.
Click to expand...
Republicans aren't acting in good faith. My points was really, hypothetically assuming they are, their reasoning is entirely stupid and doesn't stand to any amount of scrutiny.

 
Not a cult.  No immunity for a president unless that president is a wannabe dictator, convicted felon, adjudicated sexual assaulter, malignant narcissist, and fraudster then sure, have all the immunity to commit more crimes that you want.  


 
Lorewarn said:
If there's a winnable case, yes.

Depends on the context but again, if there's a winnable case, yes.

Was Roe V Wade constitutional?
Click to expand...
Appreciate you being the one to put your thoughts on those two questions.   There is ample evidence Obama killed a US citizen abroad through drone strikes so I assume you believe he should be charged and probably sitting in jail by this time.  
 

As far as Roe V Wade…obviously it was unconstitutional and rightfully overturned.   

 
Archy1221 said:
There is ample evidence Obama killed a US citizen abroad through drone strikes so I assume you believe he should be charged and probably sitting in jail by this time.  
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the one that moved over there, disowned America and became an ISIS leader?

If so, that example and this example are very different.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top