SCOTUS thread

BigRedBuster said:
How?
Click to expand...
What do you mean how?  Bring a suit against the bureaucratic application of law and allow the Court to decide if that suit is applicable.  It’s my understanding of the ruling that SCOTUS said courts can now intervene if the executive branch has gone too far outside the intended application of the law and previously they couldn’t.   Maybe I’m completely wrong.  If so, show me how I’m wrong and I would change my tune.    
 

prior to that ruling, what did you do to try and change applications of law like you described earlier to get it changed?  Did you sue to get a better application?   If not why not? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
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
Click to expand...
Not sure why you bring up Trump to refute anything as I earlier had said the last three presidents would be in jail for killing innocents.   Interesting though you constantly just do the bur but Trump thing to excuse someone else’s behavior :dunno

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/holder-weve-droned-4-americans-3-by-accident-oops/

https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data

Not to mention willingly arming cartels that killed CBP agents, 

 
no problem...it was official

GRbxlQ-XcAA7t14


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221 said:
Not sure why you bring up Trump to refute anything as I earlier had said the last three presidents would be in jail for killing innocents.   Interesting though you constantly just do the bur but Trump thing to excuse someone else’s behavior :dunno

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/holder-weve-droned-4-americans-3-by-accident-oops/

https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data

Not to mention willingly arming cartels that killed CBP agents, 
Click to expand...
No, I pointed out how killing a leader of a foreign terrorist group that disowned the US is much different than a President wanting to kill US civilians that are protesting on US soil. 
 

 
Archy1221 said:
What do you mean how?  Bring a suit against the bureaucratic application of law and allow the Court to decide if that suit is applicable.  It’s my understanding of the ruling that SCOTUS said courts can now intervene if the executive branch has gone too far outside the intended application of the law and previously they couldn’t.   Maybe I’m completely wrong.  If so, show me how I’m wrong and I would change my tune.    
 

prior to that ruling, what did you do to try and change applications of law like you described earlier to get it changed?  Did you sue to get a better application?   If not why not? 
Click to expand...
That’s what I thought. 
 

Obviously, I haven’t filed a lawsuit before. And, I doubt if I do now because that would be very costly and it would be left up to a judge that has no expertise in anything pertaining to the case. 
 

Great idea republicans.  

 
BigRedBuster said:
No, I pointed out how killing a leader of a foreign terrorist group that disowned the US is much different than a President wanting to kill US civilians that are protesting on US soil. 
 
Click to expand...
Gotcha and I agree.   What about non leaders of foreign terrorist grouped?  
 

btw…. It’s also different for some rando person to kill another random person on the street or for that same rando person to kill a murderer that’s still on the streets of society in a vigilante scenario.   But both are illegal correct.  

 
Presidential immunity is a pretty fascinating moral subject. International courts like The Hague have long called for the arrest and trial of active world leaders engaged in murderous wars and domestic repression, always knowing it ain't gonna happen. 

If you are a U.S. President, ordering the deaths of people comes with the job. Every single time. Presumably in defense of the country, but often not really. It's not like citizens aren't aware that the occasional drone strike wipes out an Afghan wedding party, but we generally shake our head and move on. 

So we can talk about the extenuating and perhaps dutiful circumstances that require Presidents to be above the laws of our own land, and justifiably criticize their moral choices. At the same time I think we can recognize that Presidents who break laws entirely for their personal gain are really no different or defensible than the less powerful a$$h@!es who fill up our criminal justice system. That's Donald J. Trump, and he has 40 years of cases against him, none of which call into account the difficult decisions and responsibilities of the Presidency. He's simply a crook and con artist. This is so f#&%ed up. 

 
Things Ginni Thomas never ever ever talked to her husband about. Also, speaking of referring to things as coups…

"Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!! ... You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America's constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History," Thomas wrote on Nov. 10, 2020.

Thomas wrote to Meadows on Nov. 19, 2020, "Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down."

On Nov. 24, 2020, she wrote: "I can't see Americans swallowing the obvious fraud. Just going with one more thing with no frickin consequences... the whole coup and now this... we just cave to people wanting Biden to be anointed? Many of us can't continue the GOP charade."

 
Back
Top