It’s like you don’t know that many of us have lost friends & family AND that the majority of the population now have that SAD trump juice inside them. It’s like you have no moral compass at all.
Anyone who thinks that Trump is a violent authoritarian clearly wasn't looking at the four years he was in charge with a critical eye.
Even with respect to the vaccines, he didn't mandate anyone use them, he just helped get some red tape out of the way so that they could get to market faster. It was others who took the fact that those vaccines existed and then mandated that millions of people be forced to take an untested experimental vaccine.
I know myself and a lot of other people kind of wish that he had been a little bit more of a violent authoritarian in certain respects. If Minneapolis was my home city, and a bunch of violent lunatics were burning it to the ground for months, I would want every level of government to be stepping in to protect the property rights of the individuals other than the protesters who live in that City and are watching their homes and businesses be burnt to the ground. Instead he just sat there wagging his finger at them.
Even with respect to the vaccines, he didn't mandate anyone use them, he just helped get some red tape out of the way so that they could get to market faster. It was others who took the fact that those vaccines existed and then mandated that millions of people be forced to take an untested experimental vaccine.
I know myself and a lot of other people kind of wish that he had been a little bit more of a violent authoritarian in certain respects. If Minneapolis was my home city, and a bunch of violent lunatics were burning it to the ground for months, I would want every level of government to be stepping in to protect the property rights of the individuals other than the protesters who live in that City and are watching their homes and businesses be burnt to the ground. Instead he just sat there wagging his finger at them.
@sj_zero @2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da
Trump showed he was the moderate candidate. If you need Communist totalitarianism, Sleepy Joe is your man.
Trump showed he was the moderate candidate. If you need Communist totalitarianism, Sleepy Joe is your man.
Sovereign immunity is well established in the common law.
It says that the only time the government can be liable for crimes or torts is when it agrees to be liable for crimes or torts.
There's a limited number of things that you can sue the government for, and a limited number of things that you can charge the government for criminally. That's just the way things have been for hundreds of years. Examples of where the government allows itself to be sued would be 1983 civil rights claims, and certain laws which limit the immunity of certain actors such as police officers.
If you would make the argument to me that the President should have limitations on their liability, I would agree with that and I would say that the next step would be for the Congress to present legislation which limits immunity of the head of the executive Branch and pass it (even the veto power of the president can be overwhelmed if a super majority can vote for the legislation). It would be unjust for the courts to arbitrarily decide that the ancient and well established concept of sovereign immunity has disappeared because a certain president is now the one it applies to.
It says that the only time the government can be liable for crimes or torts is when it agrees to be liable for crimes or torts.
There's a limited number of things that you can sue the government for, and a limited number of things that you can charge the government for criminally. That's just the way things have been for hundreds of years. Examples of where the government allows itself to be sued would be 1983 civil rights claims, and certain laws which limit the immunity of certain actors such as police officers.
If you would make the argument to me that the President should have limitations on their liability, I would agree with that and I would say that the next step would be for the Congress to present legislation which limits immunity of the head of the executive Branch and pass it (even the veto power of the president can be overwhelmed if a super majority can vote for the legislation). It would be unjust for the courts to arbitrarily decide that the ancient and well established concept of sovereign immunity has disappeared because a certain president is now the one it applies to.
@2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da
far from the Trump juice removing ones moral compass, it provides a very strong one
Yeah that’s why you Maga’s run from discussing it.
Also,
There’s a limited number of things that you can sue the government for
That still contradicts the claim that nothing a president does is illegal.
@2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da Many will concede your points and still stick with Trump for other reasons outside of strictly MAGA programming.
I understand. It’s hard for people to let go of their idols. And that they are ruled by emotion, and not intellect or facts and logic. Just like a liberal.
@sj_zero @2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da @Hyolobrika
A limited loophole is evolving which says that any externalities imposed by government are "takings" under the fifth amendment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/takings
A limited loophole is evolving which says that any externalities imposed by government are "takings" under the fifth amendment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/takings
@2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da There are no other candidates. You'd vote Trump to at least not give half a vote to Biden.
There Words may be different, but their policies and actions are almost exactly identical. Trump is not going to save you. What part of “you are siding with the enemy” do you not understand? do you not understand that the ending is the same no matter which one you see put in? Now I know this is scary, but you cannot fix things if you’re not willing to face the truth truth. To face reality..
@2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da Facing reality is stopping listening to what they say and looking at the results of what they do.
You are beyond hopeless.
@2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da WW would be hopeless. Let's have a peaceful act in the theater.
Trump isn’t on our side and he isn’t going to save us. Sorry.
It depends on the interpretation of which laws presently apply to which parts of the government, and also whether those laws open the office of president or the individual acting in their capacity as office holder of president.
As an example, you could sue the government as in the office of the President under a 1983 civil rights claim or a federal civil torts act claim, but the man who was president would be personally immune. On civil grounds the supreme Court has already decided in the 1980s that the person behind the presidency is immune for actions taken in an official capacity, so this second question is about criminal immunity.
Nixon V. Fitzgerald (1982) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/731/
An example of agents of the state who don't have that kind of immunity would be police officers who tend to have qualified immunity, meaning that there is a limitation in law on the amount of immunity they are allowed to claim. I think in the case of police officers the police officers would have to be generally acting within their scope as police officers, and so they can't just do whatever they want and claim immunity whereas certain individuals acting on behalf of the government still can. I would imagine that a soldier in a war zone for example likely has all civil liability waived, and so if they bombed the wrong building the people who own that building can't come back and and go after the soldier in court for it (though there is a separate military law that would apply to the solider under such circumstances).
As an example, you could sue the government as in the office of the President under a 1983 civil rights claim or a federal civil torts act claim, but the man who was president would be personally immune. On civil grounds the supreme Court has already decided in the 1980s that the person behind the presidency is immune for actions taken in an official capacity, so this second question is about criminal immunity.
Nixon V. Fitzgerald (1982) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/731/
An example of agents of the state who don't have that kind of immunity would be police officers who tend to have qualified immunity, meaning that there is a limitation in law on the amount of immunity they are allowed to claim. I think in the case of police officers the police officers would have to be generally acting within their scope as police officers, and so they can't just do whatever they want and claim immunity whereas certain individuals acting on behalf of the government still can. I would imagine that a soldier in a war zone for example likely has all civil liability waived, and so if they bombed the wrong building the people who own that building can't come back and and go after the soldier in court for it (though there is a separate military law that would apply to the solider under such circumstances).
He does not want my vote because I am antisemitic
LOL
@white_male @2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da I can't see myself voting for that orange kikesucking faggot traitor... literally the only thing he cares about is serving the vile demon jew at our expense, at least the senile pedophile is incompetent so doesn't get much done... be a lot better if his jewish occupational cabinet just ceased to exist though...
@HonkHonkBoom @2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da Pod cast rage pig talk. ;D
@white_male @2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da not gonna vote for the pedo either... choosing evil is choosing evil, lesser or greater... thats how we got here...orange faggot would be all in for his jewish masters and everything would be a lot worse... likely would have started WWIII over preserving that tiny kike faggot zelenkyys right to genocide White Rus peoples in lands inhabited by Russians and formerly/rightfully owned by Russia ... He's not even promising to fix anything other than outright lying about mass deportations, because you know damned well his jewish owners wont tolerate impediments to their White genocide plot. he's still openly anti-White and trying to hand off everything we built to shitskins as fast as possible at our expense, no apologies, no admitting where he fucked up even,... just more of his blowhard bullshit, so absolutely no chance whatsoever of changing course, he's running like he did an objectively good job last time or something, and it doesn't just look better because this pedo is such a demonic nightmare
@HonkHonkBoom @2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da Mathematically giving both half a vote then. ;]
@white_male @2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da no, they don't count the votes, or they change the count if they don't like the outcome, so a vote is 100% about giving your approval to the system itself. that's it, an act of submission, saying you believe the system is legitimate and agree, internally, to be bound by the outcomes.. Participation is approval, but the vote itself is just an opinion poll they look at behind the scenes and use to subvert. Yeah, if there is a pro-White/anti-Jew local candidate, absolutely support them and vote for them.. that could potentially not be fixed, but at the national level? come tf on.
@HonkHonkBoom @2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da Oh the humanity! Why even live? Just lay down and wait for death.
Well that’s one way of looking at it.
While I wouldn’t say that, myself. What can you say other than insults that disputes his general position?
@Hyolobrika Trump’s own team rejected that claim in oral arguments, among other places.
No serious person can believe that nothing a president does is illegal.
@2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da @sj_zero
The actual argument before the Supreme Court is extremely tame, but there’s so much sensational misinformation circulating out there.
It is simply this: a former president cannot be held criminally responsible for OFFICIAL and LEGAL actions he undertook while in office.
That’s right, it’s saying you can’t hold someone criminally liable if they didn’t break the law, and this is specifically wrt a former president.
That should be obvious, right? So why are we talking about it? Meh, technical legal procedural issues triggered it.
@2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da @sj_zero
Yeah, it's the other side of Nixon v. Fitzgerald. There it was asking about civil immunity and here it's criminal.
I agree that Trump can't get drunk at a poker game and beat a Waiter to death and go "nope, I'm the president, it's ok"
Sovereign immunity obviously only applies to actions taken in your capacity as a sovereign. However, as I said in my other post, if you're in the scope of that immunity then it would be absolute (like civil liability in Nixon v. Fitzgerald) unless limited through legislation similar to how it works in a 1983 claim or the federal tort claims act.
I agree that Trump can't get drunk at a poker game and beat a Waiter to death and go "nope, I'm the president, it's ok"
Sovereign immunity obviously only applies to actions taken in your capacity as a sovereign. However, as I said in my other post, if you're in the scope of that immunity then it would be absolute (like civil liability in Nixon v. Fitzgerald) unless limited through legislation similar to how it works in a 1983 claim or the federal tort claims act.
Snort is acting up again. Cannot see the parent so I know not what I said that this is in response too. 😞
The scope would be anything that would be considered "official duties". If you're acting in your capacity as an agent of the state, then you would not be liable.
Clinton v. Jones (1997) is relevant, because it says that while presidential immunity exists, it doesn't apply to actions taken before entering office or "alleged misconduct of petitioner was unrelated to any of his official duties as President of the United States". The next question in these cases would be whether the prosecuted actions are related to official duties as president, and I could imagine that question ultimately going back to the supreme court, given that the court could either be very broad or very narrow and that would be important to consistent legal outcomes.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/681/
Clinton v. Jones (1997) is relevant, because it says that while presidential immunity exists, it doesn't apply to actions taken before entering office or "alleged misconduct of petitioner was unrelated to any of his official duties as President of the United States". The next question in these cases would be whether the prosecuted actions are related to official duties as president, and I could imagine that question ultimately going back to the supreme court, given that the court could either be very broad or very narrow and that would be important to consistent legal outcomes.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/681/
@Hyolobrika to give a taste of the case, on appeal to the DC Circuit, that court issued a ruling with a sweeping claim rejecting the idea that civil immunity can be analogized to criminal immunity ever.
Not just about Trump or accusations about Trump, but ever.
So the question now is whether the DC circuit went too far, and people wondering why justices didn’t focus on Trump don’t seem to understand that procedural history.
This case doesn’t let Trump off of any hooks. It just reviews whether the DC Circuit misread the rules, regardless of Trump.
@2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da @sj_zero
It's often interesting listening to cases (I had a hobby of listening to supreme court cases for a long time) that the individual people involved don't matter as much as they think they do because the court is setting rules that affect everyone.
It should be mentioned that I'm just a retard on the Internet, and so anything I say about damn near anything is as such.
It should be mentioned that I'm just a retard on the Internet, and so anything I say about damn near anything is as such.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
@sj_zero well, I just try to emphasize that in most cases SCOTUS is sitting as a court of appeals, so it’s naturally judging lower courts more than the individual people named.
I don't remember the case, but there was one of the big church and state ones I think, and the lawyer was a straight stereotypical big texas lawyer and he seemed to think he could just win the case through sheer force of personality, and that just wasn't happening.
Actually, it was often surprising that you couldn't predict based on who seemed to be doing better at oral arguments who would win the case.
Actually, it was often surprising that you couldn't predict based on who seemed to be doing better at oral arguments who would win the case.
@sj_zero yeah, I think part of what you’re seeing is that different judges/justices use oral arguments for different purposes. As each has different goals with their exchanges, it makes things a little unpredictable.
Briefly, for example, while one justice might use oral arguments to voice the heart of the matter, another might use the time to help a speaker make the very best case they can, even though it’s probably wrong, to show that the losing side had every chance–they weren’t ignored.
The latter use might make the losing side sound much stronger that it really was, if you see what I’m saying.